Women Leaders Or Not? Part 2

Jeanene Reese says that there is a partnership between men and women in ministry and when you look at this from a historical perspective you will begin to see and understand that God intended for men and women to work together. You see this from the very outset of creation when both male and female were created in the image of God. Adam had no participation or knowledge of the creation of Eve. He was asleep when God formed her from one of his ribs and when he saw her he was amazed, not by the differences but the likeness that was so striking (Reese 106-107). He wasn’t a overbearing domineer who commanded her to be in submission to him, as if to say “Well I was here first so you have to obey me.” It was a partnership that they shared together. This theme can be seen in the Old and New Testament. Deborah was a key figure in Judges and played a role that would have been equivalent to an elder. But more importantly when you look to the New Testament which is closer to the context which we are dealing with you see many women serving in different capacities of leadership.

In almost every aspect it can be seen that a woman has served in that particular type of leadership baring that of elder/overseer (Ibid 107). In Luke 8:1-3 Mary, Joanna, and Susanna are seen with Jesus and the disciples providing for their needs. Tabitha who was called a disciple was doing all kinds of good works and fell sick and died. The people were so distraught that Peter resurrects her from the dead so she can continue her good works (Acts 9:36-41). In Acts 46:14-15, 40; Lydia was worshipping on the Sabbath and after she heard the gospel her entire household was baptized, which she was the head of. Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos false teaching and are with Paul as co-leaders (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Philip an evangelist had 4 unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Phoebe is a deaconess in Romans 16:1 and Paul admonishes her for the work and in verse 7 Junia is considered outstanding among the apostles (Ibid 113).

This evidence of women serving and being commended by Paul certainly has some very significant meaning. It is not so clear after all that women are not to be serving in the capacity of authority. If that is the case then Paul seems to be contradicting himself if we are to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is the final authority on women in leadership. If you are to take Timothy by itself you will win the argument. But when you look to scripture as a whole you will find it very difficult to say that this one passage and the 2 others that allude to this concept of exempting women from leadership are the final authority. If that is the case you will see a contradiction in God’s word. Therefore, careful exegesis and hermeneutics are required to find out what Paul is hinting at in this passage. With that said, we turn to a literary analysis of the passage.

Because the Bible is so dense and complex it is natural that certain passages seem to keep coming about for reevaluation and since this seems to be one of the most important topics for today it almost appears as if this text “has in a way chosen us instead of vice versa (Pierce 344).” There is definitely something going on here and because this text keeps surfacing it seems that we are missing something. There are three traditional interpretations of this passage. 1) You read it literally and apply it to all women and therefore ordination of women is excluded. 2) You say this doesn’t apply to us today because it carries no authority. In other words, Paul didn’t write such a thing. 3) Paul was only referring to women in the first century. It was a cultural issue. The major problem that comes about when interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is placing it next to Colossians 3:11; Eph. 2:14; 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:18; which seem to contradict what Paul was saying (Spencer 315).

Within reading this in its literary context it is important to note several things. First, Paul is not simply addressing woman because they are women. Second, we must understand that as readers of this letter we are analyzing the interaction of the author with receivers of the letter. We are working with one side of the dialogue and must infer from the one side what inspired the writer to say what he said. Third, it requires a “Hermeneutic of hearing that encourages a careful listening to the text (Heidebrecht 171-173).” What the writer says and how he says it are huge keys to proper interpretation.

So what are the possibilities of Paul calling women to be silent in Ephesus, because he is clearly not making this as a blanket statement to all the churches? Spencer points out that in 2 Timothy 3:5b-7 the Greek word used is for “weak women” who were deceived and who listened to the wrong persons. It is possible that because of the false teaching some of the women had believed it and were now propagating it; indicating what Paul was trying to do away with in his first letter to Timothy. Thus Paul is telling the women to stop teaching because what they are teaching is false because they were deceived by the false teachers. This would also add emphasis to Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve serving as a reminder of how Eve was deceived and brought Adam into sin through her deception (216).

The entire context of this particular letter has to deal with Timothy correcting the false teaching. Paul begins the letter by informing us of what the false teaching was 1 Tim 1:3; 6:3. The people were proclaiming a different gospel. He then alludes to the fact that this false teaching is going on inside the church and people are being led away (1 Tim 1:4-6; 4:1; 6:21, 2). This false teaching was also causing division among the church. This false teaching was meaningless talk (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4). Finally the false teaching looks to have been influencing entire households (Titus 1:11) (Heidebrecht 173-174). We can get a pretty good picture of what the scene looked like. And with the freedom that women now have we can see how easily things could have gotten out of hand. The church is just beginning to grow and develop and you have pagans coming from cults where they exercised authority and are now trying to exercise that same authority in the church. What Paul may have specifically been trying to combat is women aggressively trying to take the leadership from the already established leaders of the church. Women were frequently associated with the worshiping within the fertility cult in which they were extremely dominant. So as they enter into the church they very well may have been trying to gain power in the ranks of the church (Pierce 353). In the pagan worship of the fertility god you had to engage in sexual intercourse and the women played the dominant role of whether that happened. Either you did what they said to have sex with them or they denied you the privilege excluding you from worship. With that type of power the new female converts may have been trying to exercise the same dominance but under false teaching because of what they heard from the false teachers that Paul is having Timothy address. That is why Paul excluded then from teaching. Not because they were female but because they were deceived by false teaching.

When you compare this with Gal. 3:18 you see Paul doing something radical, but this is not a universal timeless truth that was being communicated. It was to address a particular phenomenon that was taking place in Ephesus. The temporary aspect can be illustrated by turning to 1 Cor. 11:2-16; where women had to wear coverings and men’s hair lengths were addressed. We do not demand that women today wear head coverings and pull out rulers to check men’s hair length. So why must we also enforce the timeless aspect on the women in Ephesus (Pierce 347)? There is clearly a particular phenomenon taking place and special action needed to be taken to correct the problem. But that does not mean that we must enforce those same rules today.

What Paul seems to be hinting at with the use of Adam and Eve is not so much a reminder of what happened back in Genesis, but is illustrating what was happening in Ephesus with language borrowed from the fall (Perriman 140). He saw something happening and it reminded him of the fall because it was the exact same thing that was happening in Ephesus. Women were being deceived and were deceiving men. So at this point Paul used his best judgment on how to combat the situation and the best option was to silence the women until they could learn the true doctrine. This is why Paul worded the statement by saying “I am not allowing/permitting” not “I will not let or never allow (Spencer 219).”

Some say this passage has nothing to do with men and women but is actually speaking of the husband and wife (Hugenberger 342). This passage has nothing to do with the church and leadership but is dealing with wives being submitted to their husbands. Fee argues that “the ‘full’ probably has a larger front in view which includes younger widows going from house to house saying things they ought not to (Fee 72).” So it is not very promising that this has the marital relationship in view.

It is my argument that we cannot be as dogmatic as we have been for the past two millennia. There is good Biblical support and evidence to prove that women have been in places of leadership and to put a dogmatic “no” based on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is an interpretive fallacy. We must realize that culture and time have changed and there were certain things that needed to be done within the early church that do not necessarily apply today. Is that to say that scripture changes? No. It is to say that time changes and we live in a different day and age when things that were applicable several thousand years ago are not going to fit comfortably in society today. Is that to say that if the Bible is not comfortable to us we change it or conform it so it is? No. It is to say that we need to read, analyze, use proper hermeneutics and exegesis and see what truths are timeless and which ones are not.

We do not conform the Bible to our world and life. The Bible conforms us to it. As time changes so will some of the application. The truth will remain the same but the application will be different. There are a lot of Biblical passages that need to be revisited and looked at through the lens of 2009. To me personally it appears that this traditional understanding seems to sound like the man is losing something if the female is given any right in leadership. It appears as if pride is a big issue and we need to humble ourselves and reevaluate where we stand on certain doctrines. Are we imposing doctrines of man on people or doctrines of God? That is where I think we need to start the investigation. What are your motives and presuppositions that you use to interpret scripture? Because if you do it for any other reason than for God to illuminate you to His truth in scripture, then you will find it to say anything you want it too. You will be the best eisegete ever. J.I. Packer said that “The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women in the office of teaching and ruling within congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than those who challenge it (Pierce 353).” I think they need a lot of evidence to put on the table if we are to exclude females from leadership.

My opinion after much research is that there is something to say about man being created before woman, but do we exclude them from a lead position? I still do not know. Something inside me says no from my personal experience and what scripture teaches. It must be my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am wrestling with it. Do they have the right to be in a position of authority Yes. Can they speak in a public worship setting? Yes. Does that mean they stay in the nursery? No! I strongly encourage women to get up and speak in a public worship setting. One of the professors at my school who is a woman spoke in chapel and her message about parenting absolutely rocked my world. We need to give women who show themselves approved just as much right to speak to the church as the men who do the same.

1. Bible. NIV.
2. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook Of Theology. Moody Publishing, 2008.
3. Fee, Gordon D. 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984.
4. Greene Oliver B. The epistles of Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus. Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour Inc., 1964.
5. Heidebrecht, Doug “Reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15 In Its Literary Context.” Biblical Schloarship 33 no 2 (2004): 171-184.
6. Hendriksen, William. The exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957.
7. Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women In church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A survey of approaches To 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society. 35 no 3 (1992): 341-360.
8. Kent Jr., Homer a. The Pastoral Epistles Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
9. Liddon, H. P. St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
10. McGee J. Vernon. I & II Timothy Titus Philemon. La Verne, CA: El Camino Press, 1978.
11. Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning Of Authenteo In 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 no 1 (1993): 129-142.
12. Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals And Gender Roles In The 1990s: 1 Timothy 2:8-15: A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 no 3 (1993): 343-355.
13. Reese, Jeanene P. “Co-workers In The Lord: A Biblical Theology Of Partnership” Restoration Quarterly. 45 no 1-2 (2003) 106-114.
14. Spencer, Dina Besancon “Eve At Ephesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 no 4 (1974): 215-222.
15. Trentham, Charles a. Studies in Timothy. Nashville, TN: Convention press, 1959.