what, if any, is the biblical warrant for excluding women from ......long version alison whittall...

Long version Alison Whittall

What, if any, is the biblical warrant for excluding women from some forms of ministry?

Jesus encouraged and welcomed ministry from women, but his church has resisted

it.1 Currently there is a participation scale ranging from full exclusion to full inclusion,

marked by the consecration of the first Anglican female bishop. However, the fact

that her consecration was interrupted by an objector saying it was unbiblical, and a

prominent Roman Catholic archbishop said that “The ordination of women to the

episcopate presents a further obstacle to achieving that unity among us for which Our

Lord prayed” shows how contentious and important this question is.2

This essay discusses six barriers to women’s full inclusion in ministry and argues that

they can all be overcome. I acknowledge my bias towards wanting to believe this, a

cultural background which increasingly accepts women at all levels of service in the

wider world, and a hermeneutic that assumes an overarching redemptive biblical

narrative of full equality and unity for all humans at Jesus’ return. We will first

consider cultural mindsets towards women, then the roles of Old Testament women,

particularly focussing on Genesis 1 – 3, followed by women in the New Testament,

first within the gospels and finally in the writings of Paul.

1: A presupposition that a hierarchy exists because of worldly cultural

mindsets, which leads to reading the whole biblical text from this bias.

It has to be acknowledged that even the best of us are ‘[taken] captive by philosophy

and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of

the world, and not according to Christ’ (Col 2: 8). In the West, we have been heavily

influenced by misogynistic Hellenistic philosophies; women are a curse, not to be

trusted, a source of evil, in the same category as animals and slaves, ‘merely

possessions to be won, pawns in men’s powerplays’.3 Rabbinical teaching, especially

at the time of Jesus, also perpetuated this view; men daily prayed, ‘Thank God I am

1 Elizabeth Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” Centre of concern, Washington DC, 663.

2 Joanna Moorhead, Historic ordination of first woman bishop in Church of England throws down

unity challenge. 30 January 2015 12:49 http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1688/0/historic-ordination-of-first-woman-bishop-in-church-of-england-throws-down-unity-challenge (01/02/15). 3 Homer quoted in Loren Cunningham & David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rogers, Why not women? A

fresh look at scripture on women in missions, ministry and leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), 73.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1688/0/historic-ordination-of-first-woman-bishop-in-church-of-england-throws-down-unity-challengehttp://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1688/0/historic-ordination-of-first-woman-bishop-in-church-of-england-throws-down-unity-challenge


not a woman’.4 The Western church has largely accepted these philosophies,

ignoring the counter-cultural revolution that Jesus began. The power of these

mindsets in the history of biblical interpretation has not just damaged women, but

also men who may feel ‘proud’ of their superiority, affecting their intimacy with God

and women.5 These mindsets perpetuate the view of an unjust God, do not reflect his

true image, quench his Spirit, and limit the extension of his Kingdom.6

2: Belief that in Genesis 1 God institutes a hierarchical relationship.

These mindsets affect the way one interprets the pre-Fall state of humanity and this

is key, because whether we read it from the ‘complimentary egalitarian’ perspective,

or the ‘hierarchical’ perspective, we will see the rest of the Bible through that lens

(although many allow their reading of Paul to inform their reading of Genesis).

The primary argument is that woman was created in the image of God, ‘though in the

second degree’7 because she was created second. However, the man was not

created before the woman. First, God made ha’ adam, ‘the human’, from the

adamah (ground).8 Ha’ adam is not a name, reference to an individual or gender

specific.9 Then, from the human being’s tsela, God made male and female. The word

tsela ‘always refers to something connected with the side of a sacred structure, the

ark of the covenant, the tabernacle, the altars or the temple’ and here God ‘builds’

with it.10 Surely the point is that the human is a sacred structure and God is building

another equally sacred structure with him/her, which is closely linked to his presence.

It also emphasises that very human being comes from the same ‘dust’, so there is no

arguing that one sex was made from a better piece of dirt than the other11 and there

can be no sexist reading either way: neither the man as the primary creation nor the

woman as the pinnacle of creation!12

4 N.T. Wright, Women's Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis, np and Philo quoted in Loren

Cunningham & David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rogers, Why not women? A fresh look at scripture on women in missions, ministry and leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), 108. 5 Rogers, Why not women? , 16-17.

6 Rogers, Why not women? , 15-22.

7 Calvin quoted in Mary Evans, Woman in the Bible (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1983), 14.

8 Donald E. Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 From Eden to Babel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1988), 39. 9 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 28.

10 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48.

11 Evans, Woman , 15.

12 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48.


Even if one believes that the man was created before the woman, this does not imply

superiority. One Rabbi said, ‘If a man’s mind becomes [too] proud, he may be

reminded that the gnats preceded him in the order of creation.’13 Even if one believes

that the concept of primogeniture originated here, this concept is overturned

throughout the Old Testament, beginning with Abel over Cain, which suggests that

this not a universal principle.14

Some may argue that the ‘man’ was complete without the woman, but God said his

isolation was ‘not good’ (Gen 2: 18). The creation of the woman ‘transformed Eden

into paradise’.15 The human, only now become ish (man), recognises this when he

sees the woman, and calls her ishshah (woman), the similarity of their designation

indicating their similarity of image and substance, presumably like the Trinity (Gen 2:

23).16 To suggest any subordination between the persons here creates problems with

regards to Trinitarian theology. It seems that their communion is so strong that they

have little self-awareness; they are naked and not ashamed (Gen 2: 25).17

We then come to the argument that the woman is the ‘helpmate of man, his

complement and partner...his equal, but secondary.’18 It is true that the woman was

made as a ‘helper’ (ezer keneged) but just because someone helps another, does

not mean they are subordinate.19 Also, ezer is used throughout the Old Testament to

refer to God’s help (e.g. Ps 121: 1-2), meaning ‘a more capable, more powerful, more

intelligent ally.’20 However, it is balanced by keneged, meaning ‘a help corresponding

to him...equal and adequate to himself’, someone suitable to serve with him,

alongside him as he ‘tills’ and ‘keeps’ the garden (Gen 2: 15).21 It is a picture of joint

leadership.

13

Rogers, Why not women? , 95. 14

William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 134. 15


Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 49 and Rogers, Why not women? , 95. 17

Lori Hope Lefkovitz, “The Genesis of Gender Transgression,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 101 (2011), 408-409 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 50. 18

T.C. Vriezen quoted in Evans, Woman , 16. 19

Evans, Woman , 16. 20


Rogers, Why not women? , 96 and Evans, Woman , 16.


It is also argued that even if the man and woman were created equal, they were

created to have different ‘roles’.22 However, they are not given separate roles beyond

their biological ones: ‘God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and

multiply...have dominion”’ (Gen 1: 28), clearly suggesting shared production of life

and leadership over creation. In Genesis 2 different roles are not mentioned, nor in

Genesis 3, unless one reads the consequences of the Fall as instituting these (Gen

3: 16, 17-19) which would, anyway, be a consequence of the Fall, and not how God

intended it.

The woman has also been blamed for the Fall, but the text says that the man was

with her (Gen 3: 6, 3-4).23 They are equally and individually responsible. Alternatively,

some argue that it was Adam’s fault, that he ‘forsook his responsibility, his headship’

by doing nothing,24 which is why Paul says that sin came into the world through one

man (Rom 5: 12), and why Christian men now need to make sure they exercise this

authority as part of restoring creation order. However, this now puts too much

responsibility on the man, and not enough on the woman. The point, surely, is that

neither of them exercised the authority they had both been given to have dominion

over the serpent.

Only after the fall is there any disunity between the man and woman, starting with the

man blaming her (Gen 3: 13).25 They are now self-conscious, ashamed of their

nakedness, aware that they had been in close communion with each other and with

God, but no longer. Culture and conflict is ‘born here: in the fear of self-exposure in

relationships, in the need to hide,’ the need to self-assert and protect.26 Only after the

fall are they addressed separately by God, and mention of the man ‘ruling’ over the

woman appears (Gen 3: 16). She had been ishshah to his ish, but now he gives her

an individualised name, hawwah (life/Eve), thereby imposing his rule over her, as he

did over the animals (Gen 3: 20).27 The introduction of hierarchy is the result of the

fall, not a distortion of it.28

22

Lis Goddard & Clare Hendry, The Gender Agenda (Nottingham: IVP, 2010), 24. 23


Hendry, The Gender , 41. 25

Lefkovitz, “The Genesis” The Jewish Quarterly Review , 411. 26

Lefkovitz, “The Genesis” The Jewish Quarterly Review , 419 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 59. 27

Evans, Woman , 23 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 60. 28

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 119.


As Hamilton points out, the thrust of the creation stories is a shared origin, a shared

destiny, a shared tragedy and a shared hope;29 ‘It is remarkable that in the

patriarchal culture of ancient Israel such a message was heard and allowed to stand

as a part of the sacred writings, even though it may not have been acted on with

much effectiveness.’30 There is no basis here for excluding women from any form of

ministry, or seeing women as subordinate in any way.

3: Old Testament women were only given senior ministry roles because men

were shirking responsibility, or their ministry was in private.

In the rest of the Old Testament, there is evidence that women sometimes functioned

at every level of ministry (except of course the priesthood, which even most males

were excluded from). Webb calls these ‘breakouts’ from the social norms which

should alert the reader to God’s ultimate desires for a renewed humanity.31 The

general objection to this view is that ‘whenever God wishes to brand a man with a

mark of ignominy’ he raises up female prophetesses to shame them. But, Joel 2

suggests otherwise, and only false prophets, not female prophets, are condemned.32

Deborah, for example, was a head of state, judge, prophet, military leader and

songwriter (Judges 4-5). Some argue that she only judged in private, but she seems

to have held court as any other judge did.33 Some argue that she is not said to have

been raised up by God like the other judges; God only allowed her to be judge

because there were no suitable men, to rebuke men.34 However, the male judges

were not particularly ‘suitable’ candidates; Deborah was married but her husband

was not a co-judge; and there were other potential leaders like Shamgar (Judges 3:

31; 5: 6).35 Yes, Deborah encourages Barak’s leadership of the army and he is, in

effect, rebuked for not doing it, but this was his job, not Deborah’s, so this is logical.

Deborah’s leadership is not rebuked, she was very successful and the only judge

also called a prophet. To suggest that women like her are just left to ‘pick up the

pieces and assume a leadership role’ because men have failed to lead is to

29


Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48. 31

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 91. 32

Calvin quoted in Evans, Woman , 30-31. 33

Hendry, The Gender , 46- 47, 50. 34

Hendry, The Gender , 47. 35

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 95-96.


completely denigrate women.36 It is to ignore the evidence that women are God-

gifted leaders in all spheres of life. It is to place unfair pressure on men to be leaders

when this is not their gifting.

Huldah was another remarkable prophet. King Josiah sent a delegation of five

leaders to her for advice, and it cannot be argued that there were no men available

as she was active at the same time as Jeremiah and Zephaniah. Can an official

delegation of five be seen as only operating within the private sphere? This is the

problem with trying to limit women to a private sphere of ministry – where is the line?

Also, whilst women were generally limited in the ways they ministered, they were

allowed to hear the law being read, bring sacrifices and gifts to the temple, approach

the sanctuary, minister at the door of the tent of meeting, dance, sing, pray and make

vows.37 The combined evidence suggests an underlying spiritual principle of inclusive

access to all ministries, especially as in the New testament even the restriction of the

priesthood is opened to all men and women (1 Peter 2: 9).

4: If Jesus wanted women to be church leaders, he would have included them

in the twelve disciples.

Turning now to the New Testament, it is clear that Jesus was revolutionary; he

treated men and women equally.38 In terms of ministry, female disciples travelled with

Jesus (Luke 8: 1-3), so we might suppose that women were among the seventy-two

sent out to minister by healing and preaching (Luke 10: 1, 9), although of course

there are those who will argue that women just performed domestic duties. One could

argue that Jesus commissioned women as evangelists (John 4: 7-12), and Jesus is

seen preparing women to be teachers; Mary is described ‘sitting at Jesus’ feet’,

learning from Jesus just as Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel (Luke 10: 38-42).39

One studied this way in order to become a rabbi oneself.40 Then there is the woman

who anointed Jesus (Matt 26: 12), perhaps showing greater theological insight than

36

Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 47 and Rogers, Why not women? 52. 37

Evans, Woman , 26 – 29. 38


Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 40

Wright, Women's Service, n.p.


the disciples,41 and Mary, Jesus’ mother, trusted with the greatest responsibility of

all.42

Evans concludes that the only difference in the way that Jesus relates to men and

women is that women have a larger role in the passion narratives, women are not

seen opposing him, and women were not among the twelve. So, despite the

overwhelming evidence for Jesus’ inauguration of a new equality for women, there

are those who appeal to this last point to suggest that even if women can be

permitted to perform most ministries, they should not be allowed to lead the church.

Whilst it is possible that twelve male disciples was meant to be of permanent

significance for church leadership, a temporary significance is more likely.43 If we

follow the permanency logic, church leaders must also only be Jews from Galilee

who speak Aramaic and were with Jesus. Jesus did not include gentiles either, and

they were clearly a group, like women, who were not to be ostracised in the post-

resurrection world.44 Also, there is a symbolic link to Israel’s twelve tribes, so Jesus

seems to be declaring that he is the expected Messiah, enacting a parable that

bridges the old covenant with the new,45 but after his resurrection, the point is to

‘make disciples of all nations’ (Matt 28: 19).

Whatever the reason, it is worth noting that when the twelve abandoned Jesus, the

women did not, and they were first see him resurrected, the first to preach the

gospel.46 Luke tells how the men did not believe them, used as they were to a culture

that ignored women’s testimony.47 Surely Jesus is making the point that if he trusts

women with crucial information, they should too. We only know some of the facts in

the passion narratives because of their testimony.48 As N.T Wright puts it,

This is of incalculable significance. Mary Magdalene and the others are the

apostles to the apostles. We should not be surprised that Paul calls a

woman named Junia an apostle in Romans 16: 7. If an apostle is a witness

41

Evans, Woman , 52-57. 42



Evans, Woman , 50 and Rogers, Why not women? , 54-55. 45

Goddard in Hendry, The Gender , 69. 46

Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” 664. 47


Evans, Woman , 53.


to the resurrection, there were women who deserved that title before any of

the men.49

5: It cannot be proved that women in the New Testament who seem to have

teaching or leadership positions were in fact performing those functions in the

public sphere, if at all.

The mention of Junia brings us to early church women’s ministry. Some argue that

Junia, ‘outstanding among the apostles’ (Rom 16: 7), was either a man, or just had

an honorary title, or was unlikely to have performed the same function as male

apostles. However, even Chrysostom, who believed in the ‘superiority’ and ‘pre-

eminence’ of men, was convinced this was a woman.50

Women also had teaching ministries and appear to lead chuches. Priscilla is

recorded as teaching Apollos (Acts 18: 24-25) and leading a church with her husband

(Romans 16: 31). Detractors say she just taught in private,51 could only do it because

her husband was there to oversee her, or that she just ‘explained’ (ektitheimi- Acts

18: 26) which is different from ‘teaching’ (didasko - 1 Tim 2: 12).52 Where, though, is

the division between explaining and teaching? Where is the division between public

and private? Churches met in homes; it makes no sense if women were operating in

all ministries in house churches to say that they then cannot do the same in an official

building called a church. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first in the pairing, and whilst it

may be because her family was higher class than Aquila’s, Chrysostom

acknowledged that it seems to indicate ‘a greater godliness’ for the way she

instructed Apollos.53 Tertullian also recognised that ‘by the holy Prisca [or Priscilla]

the gospel is preached,’ suggesting that there was no division between teaching and

preaching.54

There are many women mentioned in association with churches in their homes, or as

Paul’s co-workers, such as Chloe, Lydia, Nympha, Euodia and Syntyche. All the

people whom Paul specifically mentioned as colleagues in ministry, whether men or

49

Wright, Women's Service, np. 50

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 257 and Evans, Woman , 124. 51

Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 72-3. 52


John Chrysostom quoted in Rogers, Why not women? , 144. 54

Tertullian quoted in Rogers, Why not women? , 146.


women, were spoken of in identical ways,55 so if we assume that the men Paul

mentions in these capacities are operating in all areas of ministry, we must also

assume the same for women. Daniélou says that co-worker words refer to

‘participation in the work of evangelism’ and the expression ‘“to work in the Lord” can

only refer to apostolic tasks’.56 There are also female prophets mentioned: Phillip’s

four daughters (Acts 21: 9) and women prophesying in church (1 Cor 11: 5).

Women were also deacons; diakoneo is associated with seven women in the

gospels, and is the same verb used to describe the ministry of seven men appointed

to leadership in the early church.57 Phoebe is described as ‘diakonos of the church’ in

Cenchrea (Rom 16: 1) and if she was a man we would assume that she had an

ecclesiastical office. As we cannot be sure whether it was a specific office or general

term for servant, though, some argue that there is no reason to suppose she did.58

However, the fact that Paul has given her the responsibility of taking his letter to the

Romans as his ‘helper’ suggests a role of responsibility. Apparently, cognates of the

word ‘helper’ here, prostasis, are elsewhere used ‘to describe the activities of those

who exercise leadership in the churches’.59 So Evans concludes, ‘there is certainly

no reason to suppose that the help and service given by Phoebe as a diakonos, as

that of Paul, Tychicus, Epaphras and Timothy did not involve spiritual as well as

material responsibilities.’60

1 Timothy 3 also gives evidence that women could be deacons. Verses 8-13 outline

the qualities required for a deacon and whilst traditionally the beginning of verse 11

has been translated to say ‘Likewise, wives of deacons’, the literal translation would

be ‘Likewise, wives/women are to be worthy of respect’.61 Because Paul is talking

about leaders here, not marriage, it makes more sense to translate it as ‘likewise,

women [deacons] are to be worthy of respect’.62

I Timothy 3 also lists the qualifications for an ‘elder’ or ‘overseer’ (episkopos). They

are to ‘teach’ and ‘take care of God’s church’, so many see this as referring to

55


J. Daniélou quoted in Evans, Woman , 127. 57


Murray cited in Evans, Woman , 125. 59

R. Banks cited in Evans, Woman , 126. 60



Rogers, Why not women? , 229.


bishops or church leaders. The argument for excluding women is the use of ‘he’

throughout the description, but Hamilton points out that if we are true to Paul’s

grammar in the opening to this section he says, ‘If anyone sets [his or her] heart on

being an overseer, [he or she] desires a noble task’ (v. 3, my italics).63 Also, if we

follow the logic that only men described in the text can be overseers, then they also

have to be married and have children, which we would think ridiculous.

6: Paul taught that women should be silent and never have authority over a

man.

We turn, then, to a closer look at Paul. From our discussion above, it appears that he

was happy to minister alongside women in all capacities, so when we consider other

passages where he may at face value seem to be contradicting himself, we should have

this in mind. We also need to bear in mind the emphasis Paul continually puts on unity

and the church being ‘one body’ (e.g. Col 3: 14-15), with ‘neither Jew nor Greek, neither

slave nor free, no male and female’ in Christ (Gal 3: 28). Whilst some argue this is only

equality in terms of salvation, Paul has actually been arguing that Peter’s behaviour in

returning to Jewish traditions goes against the gospel because it creates the barriers of

a social hierarchy, and Paul repeatedly undermines these social hierarchies (1 Cor 12:

13; Eph 2: 15; Col 3: 11).64

Another consideration is Paul’s view on gifting. In 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and

Ephesians 4, we find lists of ministerial gifts. Nowhere in these passages does Paul

say that women are excluded from any of them, or that if they have them, they can

only teach other women, or do so in private, or in an ‘unofficial’ capacity. In fact, he

always reiterates that we are ‘one body’ and God gives gifts to each one as he wills.

Paul writes, ‘God has appointed in the church...’ apostles, teachers and leaders (1

Cor 12: 28). He does not say God has appointed men to these positions, and adds a

reminder not to be conformed to the pattern of the world (which excludes women),

and not to think more highly of oneself than one ought (Rom 12: 2-3). Like the body,

we are mutually dependent on all the members being allowed to exercise their gifts to

be whole.

63


I am grateful to lectures with Ben Blackwell for the idea concerning Peter and hierarchy, TH7902 Paul in Contemporary Theological Perspectives. Cheltenham; Westminster Theological Centre, 31/01/15. Also, Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 83-84.


- Silence

In 1 Corinthians, having listed the gifts and talked about the whole church coming

together (v. 23, 26), ‘each one’ bringing a gift (v. 26) and ‘anyone’ speaking in a

tongue (v. 27), why would Paul tell half the church to be silent and not use them? In

chapter 11 he has talked about women praying and prophesying (v. 5), so why in

chapter 14 would he say that women should be silent? The verses in question are:

Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone? (v. 34-36)

Hamilton comments that forty nine times in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses a tiny Greek

word (:ἤ) which could be translated as ‘What!’ or ‘Nonsense!’ to express his

disapproval of an existing situation.65 Many translations, sadly, do not include these,

but the ASV version above does; we can now understand that the section from

‘Women should be silent’ to ‘it is shameful for a woman to speak in church’ is

something that the Corinthians have been arguing and Paul is saying ‘Nonsense!’ to

this.66 He follows it with a double rhetorical question which ‘challenges those who

would limit Christian women’s right to speak. It is addressed to males; “only you” (eis

hymas monous) is in the masculine plural...Bluntly and forcefully he asks them, “Do

you presume to have an exclusive claim on the word of God?”’67

The other occasion where it seems Paul might be advocating women’s silence, and

not being permitted to teach men, is in 1 Timothy 2, 11-14:

Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a

woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the

woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression...

This is the most significant passage for those who want to deny women full

leadership and ministerial responsibilities.68 However, having already seen that

Priscilla taught men, and knowing Timothy himself was taught by female relatives

65



Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (ed. Daniel J. Harrington; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 522. 68

Wright, Women's Service, n.p.


(1Tim 1: 5), we have to ask whether there is a specific circumstance that Paul is

addressing here. He is telling Timothy to ‘command certain people not to teach false

doctrines any longer’ because ‘some have departed from these and have turned to

meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what

they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm’ (1Tim 1: 3-7). One likely

explanation, therefore, is that some women, or even a particular woman, have been

teaching false doctrines. Paul’s remedy is that they learn (Paul is being revolutionary

here!) so that they will not be deceived.69 Paul actually writes, ‘I am not permitting...’

which suggests a temporary sense of ‘at the moment’, another indication that this is

not a permanent prohibition.70

These verses say that women should learn in ‘quietness and submission’ and should

be ‘quiet’ in church. Some translate hē suchia (quiet) as ‘silence’, but the same word

is used in other instances where ‘silence’ is not appropriate (1 Tim 2: 2) and

quietness makes more sense in this context with respect to the behaviour expected

of any student or church member.71 N.T. Wright suggests that, having said women

should learn, Paul then says the equivalent of ‘but I don’t mean to imply that I’m now

setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously

men held over women’, something that needed pointing out in a city where the

Artemis cult with all women priests held sway.72 Also, the word authentein, translated

to have ‘dominion’ or ‘authority’ here, is an unusual, strong verb with overtones of

usurping and domineering, so Paul is not necessarily stopping them from having any

kind of authority, just not usurping authority.73

- Submission and headship

Those who oppose women in leadership also use this passage to argue that Paul

upholds a hierarchical reading of Genesis 1. This, and his mention of ‘headship’

elsewhere, can be the final barrier for those who want to believe that women can be

church leaders, but genuinely want to be obedient to scripture. 74 As we have already

discussed, even if the woman was second in creation, this is not a convincing

69

Rogers, Why not women? , p. 213-221. 70


Evans, Woman , 101 and Rogers, Why not women?, 218. 72

Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 73

Evans, Woman , 103 and Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 74

Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 96.


argument for excluding her from ever having authority over a man. However, it is only

fair to include some discussion on ‘headship’ here.

The verses to consider are:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man/husband is

Christ, the head of a woman/wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is

God (1 Cor 11: 3).

and

‘Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is

the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and

is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives

should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives,

as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...’ (Eph 5: 21-25).

Wives being subject to husbands has been used to justify male hierarchies and even

abuse of women, but it is clear in the Ephesians passage that Paul expects mutual

submission, and is followed by the husband’s responsibility to love his wife in a way

that places enormous value on her. This is the same in Colossians 3, where the

injunction is set within a chapter urging both men and women to ‘teach and admonish

one another’ in a way that creates harmony; clearly Paul is urging harmony in the key

relationships, not making a statement about hierarchy. As Barth says, it is

‘subordination but in such a way that the emphasis is on mutual adaptation and co-

ordination’.75 It is also significant that these passages do not say that wives should

‘obey’, whereas children and slaves should.76 Single men or women are not

mentioned here, so the injunctions do not relate to a universal principle that can be

applied to all men and women in ministry anyway.

Statements about the ‘head’ (kephalē) are more problematic. Paul does seem to be

saying that the head of the woman is the man, but it is easy to misunderstand what

he means and think he is promoting male dominance. Lucy Peppiatt proposes that

the Corinthians have misunderstood the nature of headship, and Paul is correcting

75

Barth quoted in Evans, Woman , 68. 76

Evans, Woman , 67.


them; he says, ‘I commend you...But I want you to understand...’, going on to make

sure they see it in light of God being the head of Christ.77

I am not convinced by either the meaning that the man has ‘authority over’ the

woman, or that he is the ‘source/origin’ of her (referring back to Genesis 1), but am

more convinced by a link to what Paul is always talking about: the body and unity.78

So the man (head) and the woman (in this sense, the rest of the body) go together in

unity as does Christ and the church, and God and Christ. This then makes sense of

‘the head of Christ is God’ in way which does not suggest subordination within the

Trinity. However, it is possible that it is not just one of these ideas; Chrysostom, for

example, ‘thought that the point of the verse was...the union between the head and

the body, although he also saw the idea of origin being present.’79 Whichever way we

read this, it still does not suggest a universal principle that a woman must always

been under the authority of a man.

Easily deceived

When Paul says, ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived,

but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor’ (v. 13-14), it has been

deduced throughout the centuries that Paul means ‘women are by nature so easily

deceived that they can never be trusted to teach’.80 This is perhaps not surprising

when we recall the Hellenistic world view that has permeated Western thinking, or

that women have rarely been educated to the same level as men, if at all.81 However,

Paul uses this same illustration to express his fear that both the male and female

members of the Corinthian church are being deceived (2 Cor 11: 3), and Ephesians

is also about both men and women being deceived.

If men were not equally likely to be deceived, why in Ephesians 5 does Paul urge the

whole church not to be deceived and to put on the armour of God in order to help

prevent this? If women are so easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach

children and other women (2 Tim 1: 5; 3: 14)? Socio-scientific studies have now

77

Lucy Peppiatt, TH7901 & TH7905 H7 1 Cor 11-14 (Cheltenham: Westminster Theological Centre, 2014), 1. 78

Evans, Woman , 65-67. 79

Chrysostom quoted in Evans, Woman , 67. 80

B.S. Easton quoted in Evans, Woman , 104. 81

Newport J.D. White and John Knox quoted in Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 267 and 265 respectively.


proved that ‘gender is not considered a viable component’ in gullibility,82 so

patriarchal scholars now turn to stereotyping; it is not being easily deceived that

prevents women from being leaders and teachers, but women are ‘relational and

nurturing’, so less likely than men to ‘draw the line on non-negotiables, and thus

deception and false teaching will more easily enter the church’.83 However, there is

increasing evidence that this relational thesis is not credible either.84

Conclusion

In reading for this essay, I was particularly struck by Clare Hendry’s comment that

‘Despite believing in the biblical basis of headship and authority, I know my reaction

is still to kick against it.’85 I felt sad that she had put her struggle with this down to her

rebellious nature caused by the Fall, rather than believe that her Spirit, enlivened by

the Spirit of God, was reacting against injustice. Of course, I do not disagree that we

all struggle at times to submit ourselves to authority, but why should women have this

burden added to by being told they have to submit to men – can’t we all struggle with

this on an even playing field? And why should men have their struggle with pride

added to by thoughts of superiority, or inferiority struggles because they do not match

up to false expectations of leadership?

Of course my reading is biased, and I cannot believe in a God that would give gifts to

his daughters only to tell them they can’t fully use them. I cannot believe that telling

more than half the church that they can’t use their gifts at every level of public

ministry is doing any good to men or women, the world or the spread of the Gospel. I

cannot believe that the mutual submission without hierarchy that makes my marriage

so precious is not a glimpse of what God intends for all his children. But clearly, if we

cannot resolve this issue, the unity that Paul fought so hard for, and Christ died for,

will not be won, and the body he laboured to care for will never be whole.

82

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 267. 83

Thomas R. Shreiner quoted in Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 221. 84

Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 228-229. 85

Hendry, The Gender , 96.

what, if any, is the biblical warrant for excluding women from ......long version alison whittall...

Documents