THE BIBLE AND WOMEN IN MINISTRY

What is the place of women in ministry?

What exactly is the ministry of women, or is there such a thing?

Are there any restrictions, limitations or conditions in this ministry?

Should women be in a position of authority in the Church?

Some label the varying positions around two concepts. The first concept is that called the “egalitarian position”, which is, that women are equal to men in both essence and function.  That is, there should be no functional subordination of women to men in the activities of the Church. 

The other concept is described as the “complimentarian position”, which is, that women are equal to men in essence, but are functionally subordinate. 

Over the past 30 or so years, the “egalitarian position” has infiltrated many churches, which had traditionally adopted a “complimentarian position”. 

Many view this as a result of the feminist movement making inroads into the Church.  Of course, the influence is most easily and glaringly seen in the liberal churches, which have historically not regarded Scripture as a great authority and a determining and controlling influence on what they do.   

Cultural norms and prevailing philosophical ideas have generally been more of a guide, than Scripture has been a guide for them.  They therefore have tended to be more “egalitarian”. 

The more traditional interpreters of Scripture have therefore looked at the spread of  “egalitarianism” as being part and parcel of the erosion of biblical authority, and a capitulation to the pressures of society.  They view the situation as Scriptures having been twisted to support the new claims. 

They connect these feminist moves with the ordination of women, acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle in the Church, as well as the increasing association between cults and the Christian Church. 

On the other hand, the people who have the egalitarian approach, view the Church as too slow to see and accept the social implications of the gospel, not because of solid biblical reasons, but because of the culturally conservative mindset.  They say that the Bible is being interpreted in patriarchal terms to fit the societies of the past, and not because of how God has designed the Church. 

As a Sabbath keeping Baptist Church, we too are influenced by these debates, since we are not isolated from the world.  TV preachers and their constant ‘innovations’ too bombard us.  We must however be cautious in accepting any ‘new’ or ‘ old’ arguments about biblical matters. 

We have some specific concerns, which relate to the inerrancy of Scripture, and how the Sunday observing and liberal churches treat Scripture and the commitment to the commandments in a lax fashion. 

Arguments attributing Scriptural doctrine and practice to “culture”, and the practice of ancient societies’ which have no relevance to modern life, and which must be modified or cast aside, cannot fit easily with us. 

Arguments, which divorce the ‘ modern Church’ from the Scripturally presented Israelite practice, should also strike us at out of harmony with the truth. 

We have never accepted that there is a dichotomy (sharp break and separation) between the ‘ congregation’ of God in the Old Testament, and the ‘ekklesia’ or ‘Church’ in the New Testament. 

“Innovative” or “new interpretations” of the Bible should also raise warning flags for us.  We should be more serious about holding onto the old truths of the Bible. 

All of our long accepted approaches are there to remind us that “Sabbath Keeping” and a balanced view of Jewish customs and approaches to religious life, are still binding on all true believers.  The ‘ modifications’ with respect to the sacrificial system, the Aaronic priesthood, and rites such as circumcision, are clearly stated, but we view much of Old Testament instruction as very relevant for us today. 

We too are well aware that there are intense pressures on us to conform to the ways of a greatly erring Christian Church body, as well as to meet certain strong ‘ modern desires’ within us. 

But it is incumbent on us to protect, preserve, and pass on the ‘ truths’ preached by the prophets of Israel, taught and expounded by Jesus the Messiah, and spread abroad by the Apostles. 

We cannot therefore take the matter lightly, and accept uncritically the writings and practice of those who are in serious error, who reject the commandments of God, treat Scripture lightly, and who have brought in significant extra-Biblical innovations. 

This is a critically important matter.  Our view of Scripture must therefore first be examined.  We must be reminded of our ‘ roots’. 

This is not to imply that we must close our minds to new ideas. Many in Sunday churches and some liberal churches offer great insights.  The Spirit of God continues to witness and work among all those who claim to be Children of God even if they are disobedient on major matters.

 But we must remember that there will be ‘ good’ insights, and ‘ bad’ insights.  Therefore we must test all things, and reject subtle, obvious, or glaring distortions of the truth. Scripture must test all things. 

Whether we like to believe it or not, the vast majority of the ‘Christian Church’ does not have a high view of Scripture.  They do not accept Scripture in total.  They constantly tried to redo Scripture to fit their own views.  They hardly ever, in many cases, take Scripture literally. Some have a “low” view of Scripture, and even though they are sometimes or even often in church, treat it contemptuously. 

That is why they have not accepted the Sabbath, and will reject anything that seems to be Jewish.  They do not think that this old Jewish society, the society of the people of God, has anything much to teach them.  They loudly boast that they are Gentiles, and have a right to redefine or reject the ancient Jewish Scriptures. 

They try to pretend otherwise, but they really believe that God has changed, just as the ‘society’ and people have supposedly changed, and that they have a right to make the changes that they, the new people of God, want to make. 

Extensive changes have been made to the life and doctrine of the early Church.  We have developed new structures, new ideas, and new forms of organization, which are supposedly more modern and more efficient. 

But no real true or godly situation has been created.  The corruption in the Church has reached amazing levels, and things are proceeding smoothly toward the eventual state predicted by Christ, reflected in his painful statement, “When the Son of man returns, will he find the faith on the earth?”

SCRIPTURE AS FINAL AUTHORITY

We are here as Christians only because we have inherited, that is, have been brought into, the Covenant that God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

The natural heirs and the natural Olive tree are the Jewish people, who are our Kinsmen because of the work of Jesus Christ. 

The Jewish people have been involved for a long time in a raging and serious “Holy War” for the truth, honour, and glory of God.  They stand as an example and a warning for us.  They have failed often, and now, because of continued disobedience and               unbelief, a veil has been placed over their eyes, and Gentiles have been grafted in, and have inherited many blessings. 

This situation will continue until the ‘Fullness of the Gentiles’ comes in, and the Jewish remnant restored to God's complete favor. 

We therefore must realize that we too now participate in a deadly serious battle for truth.  Our battle is a Covenant issue, for we fight for the Word of God.  So, like Micaiah we must say,

“As surely as Jehovah lives, I can tell only what my God says”. (2 Chronicles 18: 22) 

We Sabbath keepers know from the Scripture, confirmed by our experience, that the Word of God is divisive.  Whenever it is presented, it never fails to disturb Satan and to arouse his opposition. 

The Word of God separates.  Those who believe it are duty bound to protect and defend it against all attacks. 

We must also understand the simple historical fact that the true Church’s greatest attacks have always come from inside the Church itself. 

We therefore see all around us the incessant, consistent attacks on the Word of God.  People just do not want to accept the plain teaching of the Word of God.  In almost every case they reject the Word of God when it clashes with what they feel they want to do, or should be doing. 

In some cases, those who stand by the plain, literal, obvious meaning of the Word of God, will stand alone.  But in all cases, we are duty bound to defend the pure Word of God, and not permit any deviation from it.

WHY IS SCRIPTURE THE FINAL AUTHORITY?

The Christian faith is based on God's own self- revelation, not on conflicting opinions from untrustworthy speculations of men. 1 Corinthians 2:5

The Apostle Peter wrote:

“No prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” 1 Peter 1: 21. 

The Apostle Paul described “every one” of the Scriptures as being “God breathed”, that is, completely and totally inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:15-17. 

It is therefore profitable for doctrine, correction, and instruction.  We must pay attention to it for, as Jesus confirmed:

“Man shall live… by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. Matthew 4:4 

The Word of God is most critically important, for the words of false teachers were to be exposed by the previously revealed Law.  Deuteronomy 13: 1 -5, especially verse 4 stated:

“The Lord your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast..” 

This same idea on the importance of the written testimony is found in Isaiah 8: 16-20.  The prophet Jeremiah gives a stern warning to those who do not follow the Word of God.  All who do not are false, for there is no substitute for the Word of God. 

In 23: 16 Jeremiah states:

“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Harken not to the Word of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.” 

It is very instructive to read what Jeremiah says about those who speak otherwise from what is in the Word of God.  Chapter 23 makes good reading. 

Matthew 15: 6 condemned those who voided the Word of God because of their traditions.

 Colossians 2: 8 warned against believers allowing their faith to be compromised by any philosophy, which was

“After the traditions of men, and not after Christ”

The biblical books are Scriptures, and are therefore said to be divinely inspired.  Remember that the Word really means that it was “breathed out by God” or “God breathed”.  The Scripture therefore is a divine product. 

All Scripture is therefore equal to sacred writing.  The point is that God is the author of all Scripture.  Inspiration is ‘Plenary’ or ‘ full’.  The human authors were not involved in originating the message, but wrote as God moved them.  They were instruments through whom God spoke.  They were carried by the Holy Spirit when writing Scripture.  I therefore repeat that they were active in the writing, but the Holy Spirit was the active agent.

Inspiration extends to the entire matter.  See John 10: 34-36 and 2 Timothy 3: 16.

It extends to every Word in the original manuscripts. 2 Peter 1: 20-21.

Even the grammatical number is used to establish an argument.  Galatians 3: 16 use the ‘singular’ as opposed to the ‘ plural’  “seed”.

Scripture even appeals to verb tense to settle an argument. 

“I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” as opposed to I ‘was’ the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.  Matthew 22: 32. 

We must therefore be very careful when we handle the Scriptures, for it is precise and accurate, and perfectly written.  It is clear.  

Hebrews 1:1-2 told us that God had spoken in the past by his prophets, and now had spoken finally to us by his Son. 

God’s Son, Jesus Christ, commissioned certain men to act as his authorized representatives, his Apostles.  They were specifically inspired with his Word.  John 14: 26. 

They spoke for him.  Matthew 10:40.  What the Apostles themselves wrote was to be accounted as the very Word of God.1 Corinthians 14: 37.  Their written epistles came to be for the Church the same authority “as the other Scriptures”. 2 Peter 3:16. 

In 2 Timothy 1:11 Paul declared that he was, for the gospel of Jesus, appointed as a herald and an Apostle and a teacher.  For that reason he suffered.  He called on Timothy in verse 13 to hold fast to the standard of the sound teaching he had heard from him. 

In verse 14 he told Timothy to guard the good treasure entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit that lived in them. 

In 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul again stressed his Apostleship.  He repeated this in chapter 2: 7

“For this I was appointed a herald and an Apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth”. 

The words of Paul therefore are part of our Scripture, and we must never therefore tamper with the plain force of his words, or the words of any of the Apostles or the Prophets. 

Peter considered the letters of Paul as inspired. 2 Peter 3: 15-16. 

Paul treats a quotation from the gospel of Luke as inspired, citing Luke 10:7 as Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18. 

The book of Revelation is adamant about its own inspiration. (Revelation 22:18-19). 

Paul at least was aware he was an Apostle and writing with divine authority. (1 Cor. 2: 12; 9:1-27: 14: 37; 15:9;  2 Cor.1:1; 10:8; 11: 5; Galatians 1: 11-12; 2 Thess.2:13) 

Remember that when the righteous Ananias displayed fear when sent to witness to Paul, he was told: 

“But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way:for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel: 

The proper and correct view therefore is that the Bible is truly the Word of God, having infallible authority in all that it affirms or enjoins. 

Anyone therefore who argues otherwise and suggests that the Apostles are in error on any point is preaching falsehood. 

Men produced the Bible, and there is evidence of human authorship.  Historically, inerrancy has been the faith of the Church from the earliest days, and there was always this commitment that the commands of the Bible are absolute.  This presupposes a literal and historical reading, yet it clearly includes some figurative and non- historical elements such as, for example, parables. 

But the Church has always declared its total confidence in total trustworthiness of the Scripture.

 It can therefore generally be sustained that any view that implies a lesser degree of inerrancy than a total view, is in conflict with the testimony of the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.    

Unfortunately, significant part of the “Church” today do just that, in order to foster their own culturally acceptable interpretation.

Let me quote one writer:

“A key work of the Apostles was precisely that of revelation; their confessing Christ, testifying to him, interpreting and applying his person and work for the Church. (Matthew 16:18; John 15: 27; 16: 13; Acts 1: 8, 22; 4: 33; 10: 39-41; 13: 31) 

They did not speak by flesh and blood or according to human instruction, but rather by revelation of the Father and Son, (Matthew 16: 17; Galatians 1: 11-12) being taught by the Spirit. (John 14: 26) 

In virtue of this revelatory work, Christ built his Church upon the foundation of the Apostles. (Matthew 16: 18; Ephesians 2: 20).

The teaching of the Apostles was received as a body of truth which was a criteria for doctrine and life in the Church; because this teaching was passed down to the Church and through the Church it was called the ‘Apostolic deposit’ or ‘traditions’, and formed a “pattern of sound words” for the Church (2 Timothy 1:13-14) which was to be guarded (1 Timothy 6: 20-21) as the standard for Christian life (2 Thess. 3: 6; 2 Peter 2:21), and for all future teachings in the Church. (2 Timothy 2: 2).

Revelation 21:14 emphasize the spiritual position of the Apostles by stating that in the New Jerusalem, the very foundation of the walls had in them the names of the Apostles.

“And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and in them the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb”.

In the nature of the case, apostolic revelation did not extend beyond the apostolic generation, the “foundational days” of the Church.  Thus Jude in his day could speak of “the faith”-meaning the teaching content of the Christian faith-as now “once for all delivered to the saints”.” 

For those who take the importance of the canonicity of the Bible seriously therefore, all claims to convey an additional or new revelation are false.  If you find them in books which purport to supplement the Bible, or to supersede the Bible, as in the case of many cults and heresies, or to form extra-biblical traditions set forth as dogma by any ecclesiastical authority- such as the Roman Catholic Church, these claims are all false.  

We must therefore understand that the words of the Apostles are the very “breathed” word of God, and realize that denying the truth, divine origin, and validity of these words of the Apostles, puts the one who denies it in the position of attacking God himself.  This kind of action of course has serious consequences for one’s eternal destiny. 

The writings of the Scriptures are unique, divine authority for God’s people.  The Scriptures go back to Genesis and, the time of the Fathers, through the history of Israel, the Coming, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, and expansion of the church. 

God's words properly define his Being, Redemption, the words of life, God's sure promises, His Lordship, and our position as his servants. 

Note that God inspired many messages, such as the Book of Asher, The Wars of Jehovah, Paul's previous letter to the Corinthians (see Joshua 10: 13; 2 Chronicles 9: 29; 12: 15; 1 Corinthians 5: 9; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 7: 8) but he only preserved some special writings for his people's use in all subsequent ages. 

The messages from God were necessarily coherent with other messages.  God cannot lie or contradict himself, and therefore a genuine word from God can be counted on to agree with previously given revelation. 

This caution was of course absolutely necessary to make sure there would be no misleading messages from false teachers. 1 John 4: 1, Acts 17: 11. 

It cannot be over stressed that God is the author of every part of Scripture. 

Belief in the Scriptures is not optional at all.  Anyone would denies the authority of Scripture on one point, has denied it on all points.  Remember that Jesus even used the existence of a tiny little vowel stroke to prove an important point.  Therefore, not even a ‘jot’ or a ‘tittle’ would pass away from the Law until all was fulfilled.  Scripture therefore cannot even be modified to the smallest, tiniest extent. 

Some even go so far as to deny the Genesis creation doctrine, and thus by so doing, assert that they have supremacy over Scripture, declaring that their mind and their convenience are a higher authority. 

But we must understand that the only things that we really know, is what God has shared with us.  He knows things originally, and he is the only independent Knower.  We are dependent knowers, for we learn from him.

Only God therefore speaks the certain word.

The same question asked by Satan in Eden is being asked today:

“Yea, hath God said?”

And the denial is still being made

‘If you disobey God by disobeying his word, you shall not surely die’. 

All people, including sinners, must understand that the Word of God has absolute authority. 

God is uncreated, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, all wise, all-powerful, holy, just, good and true.

 Man is created, finite, temporal, and changeable. 

There is a worldview that does not see the Laws of God and his decrees as the ultimate.

They view the Word of God as only helping them to achieve ‘freedom’. Therefore they have simply changed the eternal unchanging Word of God to a set of propositions that are changeable and malleable. 

But the Word of God is “One” and “Unchanging”. 

We should now therefore look at what it is to believe, for there are some who say they believe, but they really do not believe.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BELIEVE?

First, let us note that there are many senses in which the word ‘belief’ is used.  But there are many different kinds of belief, sources of belief, and consequences of belief.  Sometimes we talk about belief as a mental thing, while sometimes we think about belief as a disposition to think in certain ways. 

Beliefs are held with different degrees of confidence.  Some are merely suspicions, or opinions, or even convictions.  Some are held as ‘right’ after investigations, while some are held without any real thought.  Some beliefs are irrational, and some are spontaneous. 

A belief is not simply having a thought or a theory, but involves a positive attitude toward some idea or proposition, so that one relies upon it, consciously or otherwise, so that it guides one's action. 

When we talk about belief it always refers to a positive attitude, assurance, and convictions toward propositions, which have been heard or read.  We see this in Hebrews 11: 1, 8-9, 17, 23-28; James 1: 1-3. 

There is no separate vocabulary into new Testament Greek for “belief” over against “faith”, for both words in English are expressed by the same verb and same noun.

One writer comments 

“The biblical witness, just like modern English, utilizes not only the expression “to believe that” (some proposition is true), but also the expression “to believe in” or “to believe on’ (the reliability, integrity or authenticity of some person)… These different uses of “to believe” can be readily illustrated.  The person who approaches God must “believe that he exists” (Hebrews 11: 6); to be saved he must “believe that God raised Christ from the dead” (Romans 10:9).  Justification is the blessing of those who “believe upon” the One who raised Jesus (Romans 4:24); no one believing “on Him” will be put to shame (10:11).

Speaking of himself, Jesus said everyone who believes “in Him” will have eternal life (John 3: 15)-which is the same as believing “into Him” according to the very next verse.  It would be a mistake to think that when the Bible speaks of trusting somebody-believing “in” (or “upon”) him-that this mental act/state can be separated from believing propositions about that person or uttered by him.  To have faith in Christ, for instance, entails believing that what Christ claimed about himself was true, that God historically raised him from the dead, etc. 

However it is possible to believe a set of true propositions about God, and even to respond to those propositions in a very overt way-thus genuinely to “believe” them-and yet not have the response of “trust” or saving “faith”.  As James reminds us: “the demons also believe and shudder”.  The non Christian knows, and thus believes, the truth about God, but suppresses it in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-20); he responds by not glorifying or thanking God, but becoming intellectually foolish, morally darkened, and idolatrous (vs. 21-23).  Thus faith, generically speaking, believing certain propositions, and saving faith should not be considered identical.  The response which is associated with true, living, or saving faith, is that of obedience, works (James 2: 17), peace with God (Romans 5: 1), hope (verse 5), rejoicing (verse 11), and so on. 

One final application can be made of the observations and distinctions made, taking into account now the factor of what people avow or verbally declare about their beliefs.  Profession with one's lips is the natural reflex of believing certain propositions and/or trusting someone within your heart.  For instance:

“With the heart a man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10: 10). 

However, what a person professes is not an infallible indicator of his beliefs or his heart-attitude.  It is possible to honor God with one's lips and yet have a heart, which is far from him (Matthew 15:7-9, where Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13).  One can profess religion and “say” he “has faith”, and yet be self deceived (James 1:22-27; 2:14-26).  And as noted earlier, “unbelievers” who profess not to believe in God or to believe that God has a certain character nevertheless are “believers” who suppress the truth which they know in their heart of hearts-having “unsaving faith” (believing but responding with disobedience and refusal to profess the truth)”.  

We can therefore now look at the texts of the Bible to see what it teaches, knowing that it is right and correct, and that the vast majority of its teachings are quite plain, and readily understood.  There is no conflict in the verses, and we should not create any.   

Let us also realize when we study this matter that the Christian Church did not arise in a historical vacuum.  It has a mother called Judaism.  It has a Saviour, who was Jewish, and definitely not a North American or Caribbean person, with attitudes from those cultures. 

Our faith had Apostles, who laid the foundation on the instructions of their Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  The Holy Spirit inspired them, and their teachings are Scripture.  Nobody has the power or authority or wisdom to challenge what they taught us.  Their words were the Words of God. 

We can never underestimate the importance of the Apostles and their doctrine.  Jesus made it clear in John 17: 20.  Notice how he stresses the word of the Apostles as the only source through which men would believe on him. 

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for those also which shall believe on me through their word”. 

It is through the word of the Apostles that we learn about Jesus.  God gave Jesus these men out of the world, and they were the ones that told us about Jesus. (Verse 6-8) When people therefore challenge the word of the Apostles they do not understand the risks that they are running with God. 

Christ accepted the Old Testament on doctrinal matters.  When he met Satan after his baptism, he appealed to the authority of Scripture when Satan challenged him with, “It is written”.  When Jesus met the religious leaders, he did not attack them for following the Old Testament.  He condemned them not for their belief, but for their unbelief, and for their misleading application of the teachings of Scripture.  For Jesus “Scripture cannot be broken”, and this represented totally his approach to the Bible.   

We can do no less than Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles.

AN EXAMINATION OF SOME BIBLICAL TEXTS

Before we look at some of the biblical texts, we must point out that nowhere in the Bible are women regarded as lesser citizens of the Kingdom of God. 

The Scriptures clearly show that women have played a very important and indispensable role in ministry, and they have contributed immensely to the spread of the Gospel.  God created both sexes in his image, and have used both men and women to accomplish his purpose.  There can therefore be no Biblically supported position that states that women who have a desire to please God, have no place in ministry of the Church. 

There is no question that men, both inside and outside of the Church, have hurt women.  They have often been overlooked in ministry, and their contributions have often been denigrated.  This has been an unfortunate matter, which nowhere has biblical support. 

We must therefore look at exactly what the Scriptures say, and accept its verdict.  We must therefore examine the ministry of women in the Bible to indicate whether there were limits on women in ministry, and if in fact the biblical teachings match precisely with what they actually did. 

Let us understand that the word ‘ ministry’ is a very broad term, coming from Greek words conveying the idea of “service” in a very broad sense.  The word includes the idea of Martha’s ‘ ministry’ by preparing a meal (Luke 10: 40), to those as in 1 Peter 4:10  ‘ministering’ to one another in the Church.  Paul in 1 Corinthians 12: 5 stated that

“There are different kinds of service (diakonia), but the same Lord.”  The whole idea of ministry then, has a very broad sense. 

As a result it is clear that not all ministries, which are valued in the sight of God, are necessarily public or official ministries.  When we denigrate any of the roles termed  ‘ministries’ in the Scriptures, we are in fact denigrating the work that God has assigned people to do. We know from the Scriptures that many women, and men too, have been involved in significant ministries, even if those ministries were unofficial. The Bible records, for example, that many women ministered unto Jesus. What greater work was there than that! 

The “unofficial” ministries of women, and of men, are of great importance.  Some people, including men, who desire leadership for its status and power, who in so doing are behaving exactly like the Gentiles behave, ignoring the warning of God given in Mark 10:42, have actually brought into the Church a secular concept of ministry.  This introduction of a false concept, has done great damage to the Church, for it has encouraged the idea that some ministries have little or no value, while some others have all the value and worth in the sight of God. 

It is therefore most important for people of God to reject the secular concepts and interpretations from the world, and to stick to the biblical definitions. 

Let us remember that the world does not look at things the way that God looks at things.  The wisdom of the world is foolish.  But we, even though we should know better, have often adopted the standards of the world and rejected the standards of God.  This of course is one big reason why people in the Church have difficulty accepting that they are any restrictions on them, both in the area of ministry, and in the area of general behavior. 

WOMAN’S POSITION AND WORK

The Scriptures teach that the sexes are inseparably joined together, and that one cannot prosper without the other.  It is therefore false to suggest that we can honour man and dishonor woman, and exalt man and degrade woman.  This is self-contradictory. 

Genesis 2 defines the relationship between the two sexes.  It was an exact, comprehensive, and most honorable definition, which taught the equality of the sexes.   

The Bible tells us that woman was created to be “an help-meet for man”.  She was of the same nature with man, and like him, made in the divine image.  She was not created to be his rival or to be a substitute, but was to inspire him, that is, to be his ‘ help-meet’.   She was not man’s superior or inferior. 

It was not good for man to be alone, so woman was created to give a fullness to his life which would not be there if she was not there as his companion. 

Woman have suffered because of sin, but it was decreed that through her would come the Redeemer for all mankind.  She was obviously therefore entitled to all the blessings that the Redeemer would bring.  The atoning blood of Christ was available to her as it was available to man, and she too could be ‘in Christ’. 

Galatians 3:28 put that most clearly: 

“There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” 

As an aside, note that the immediate context is laid out for us in vs. 26 and 27, for the focus is on the privileges of becoming a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ.   

Paul here denies the validity of the common Jewish man’s morning prayer, in which he thanked God that he was not born a slave, a gentile, or a woman. Paul slammed these false human distinctions of race, social position, or sex as being invalid in Christ. 

This verse has nothing to do with societal roles, and did not address the position of slaves in the society and cancel slavery, or give children freedom not to obey their parents. If it was a comment on societal roles, it would have had to deal with those matters, but Paul does not make that kind of comment anywhere. 

But back to the position of women.  As Genesis 2 clearly teaches, woman was not created to be man's drudge, slave, or a victim of his lust, to be in abject dependence, servile     submission, and to be treated with deep mistrust and contempt. 

The doctrines of the Bible reject this position.  It also rejects any asserted superiority of woman.

 The Bible gives her an exalted position, where she is protected against any attempt to place her in difficulty.  In this world, she, more than man, had need for its protecting and nurturing care, and the Bible gave instructions to ensure that she has precisely that.  She was given true liberty, and allowed to give glory to man and to her Savior. 

The work of woman therefore is coordinate with that of man, and was mingled with his work.  She was a helpmeet at his side.  Her work does not run parallel to, and separated from, that of man. 

Therefore we see the phrases “which labored with me in the gospel”,” my helpers in Christ Jesus”, “who bestowed much labor on us”, describing the manner in which women worked, not without man but with him. 

Her work was most important, as revealed in the important position that women held in the life of Jesus.  They followed him, ministered to him, showed their undying love by faithfully being near him when he was on the cross, were the first at the Sepulcher, and were the first humans to announce his resurrection from the dead. They were present on Pentecost, and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

Paul, to teach the right approach, took great pains to commend the women who worked with him in the gospel, and held them up as an example.  He held up Phoebe, a servant of the Church at Cenchrea, Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, the beloved Persis, and the women of Philippi as great people of God.   

Women too, with men, were inspired directly by the Holy Ghost, being miraculously endowed with extraordinary gifts.  She was honored in this regard equally with man. 

But even when prophesying, directly inspired by the Holy Ghost, she was not to prophesy with her head uncovered.

 In other words, even when under the power of the Holy Spirit, she was not to forget her position as a true woman, and dishonor her sex by assuming a position that did not belong to her.  She was to be modest and show humility, and thus display her true glory. 

Similarly, she could teach the gospel, and carry its glad tidings, but in no case do we see her engaged in open, public, and official preaching of the gospel.  There is not one hint of a woman being placed in a position of an Apostle, evangelist, pastor, elder, or ruler. We will examine this matter in detail shortly.  There were limitations, reflecting her position as established by God. 

There can be all kind of extra biblical reasons in favor of women having the unrestricted right to teach, preach, or rule, but the language of both Old Testament Scripture, and New Testament Scripture has to be perverted to justify it. 

Extra biblical reasons are quite varied. There are claims by some that they have received a call from the Lord to teach or preach.  There are many 19th-century and 20th-century women who made this claim. 

There is also the pragmatic argument that women are effective in these roles, and that they are needed to get the job done.  There is a demand for laborers, and believers in each age must make the decision as to what is best and fitting in view of the circumstances prevailing. 

It is also argued that women are already engaged in these ministries and they should therefore be recognized.  The change should not be hidden or reversed. 

In addition of course, there are arguments that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture, and which are often supported by reading ideas completely foreign to the first century mind, into commonly used phrases.   

When Paul speaks of “fellow workers”, or of women” who labored with him in the gospel” some try to use these to designate official titles, which put the women on par with Paul and the apostolic legates like Titus, that he appointed. 

But one cannot infer from these expressions that these women were official teachers and ordained preachers of the gospel and rulers in the Church.  That would turn language on its head.  The Scripture tell us what the official positions were in the ‘ congregation of Israel’, the synagogue, and in the early Church.   

The other expressions were commonly used to refer to helpers.  In all cases we must follow clear teaching of Scripture. 

Quite prominent in the discussion, are reinterpretations of Scripture, done deliberately to support the changing circumstances of women.  The idea that is promoted is to look at the Scriptural prohibitions in the light of the times in which they were made.  The conclusion is then drawn that these prohibitions were not meant for all women in all times and places, but were only good for those unique times.  Of course the inference is that the Holy Spirit is now speaking in the Church, as well as through the Bible. 

Let us note however that as far as the Bible is concerned. both sexes must work in harmony.  God's order is for co-operation, and not rivalry.  God has assigned women a role, and he has assigned men a role.  Her mission is to man, and she is to work within rather than without, and glory in ministering rather than in leadership. 

Many people fail to pay close enough attention to what the Book of Genesis teaches.  In Genesis, there is a recurring theme of separation or division between parts of creation.  There are boundaries set for example, between light and darkness, between the different kinds of water, between sea and land, between vegetation and animals which multiply ‘after their own kind’, and between human beings and the rest of the world.  The divisions and boundaries between them are extremely important. 

In addition, the book of Genesis gives a very orderly account of creation.  It is tightly organized, follows a carefully laid out plan, and its order is quite deliberate and purposeful. 

The idea of separating and setting limits is extremely important from chapter 1.  God is shown as coming into a formless, empty, dark chaos, and imposing his own order by a spoken word.  Not only does he set up a cycle of seasons, but he stabilizes his creation, establishes fertility of plants and animals, as well as the boundaries and limits of fertility of the earth.  All plants and animals produce only “after their kind”. 

In the Scriptures we are presented with a world ordered by God himself, who sets the limits and boundaries of his creation. 

All the concepts of law and morality incorporate the idea of boundaries and limits as part of the created order.  The people of God therefore know that there are principles by which they must live in God's world as God's people. 

All the structures of law and morality therefore, are a very powerful and deliberate structure by God.  It stands in such a way that it rejects the pagan myths which reject the roles assigned by God. 

Boundaries and limits therefore are significant concepts, and applies in our world, as well as in the ancient world.  The world is orderly, and God acts in orderly ways.  He is the source of stability, of peace and well-being. 

Human beings must learn, they have certainly experienced this in history, that they cannot create in God's world.  They cannot bring order.  They can only destroy, that is, bring chaos.  Trying to live outside the boundaries, erasing the boundaries God has set, or trying to create new ones of their own making will have devastating consequences, for that will threaten to introduce chaos into the world again.  We therefore must not be surprised when social experimentation leads to disaster for women, children, the aged, and of course men. 

Genesis clearly rejects any other controlling force besides God.  He does not share his world with anyone else.  He has no rivals, no other gods that will share his power. 

This is the model that God presents about himself and his activity.  There really is no concept of a battle between God and anyone else.  The outcome of all things is certain.  Let us therefore understand that God has created and established all things, and he has declared it “good”.   

It cannot be stressed too much therefore, that there are and have been many noble women of God who have worked in many different ministries, and all honour must go to these devoted and faithful women, who spent their lives working for God.  They know what God required, and they all have struggled to follow the plan of God, and work for him. But unquestionably, this work then did, and now must take place within the confines of the inspired direction of the Holy Spirit.

 This tremendous freedom and latitude to work for God is available to woman.  This is given by God, and mandated in the Scriptures.  The Scriptures must guide us.  

The Scriptures plainly taught that she was subordinate to man, and laid out the order of authority, man being given the leadership: 

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 

It is therefore most important for us to look soon at the biblical meaning of “subordination” and “dependence” or “submission”. 

These words cannot be given meanings that imply selfishness, abuse of power, and pride on the part of man. Neither should any meaning be attached to these words that allow women to discard the teaching up the Scriptures, be ungrateful to her God, reject his doctrines, part company with the Bible, and let the wisdom of the world and the fleeting ideas about the modern spirit of progress appeal to her self-interest and vanity. 

1 TIMOTHY 2:11

We begin by looking first at verses that are part of a letter reminding Timothy of his responsibility to Jesus Christ. 

Paul stated his credentials as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a position commanded by God our Saviour, and the Lord Jesus Christ.   

He gave Timothy a series of solemn and grave charges that he should ensure were implemented.   

We should note that the Epistle to Timothy consists of a series of counsels to a young pastor.  That is why at ordination ceremonies we always hear readings from this Book.

The Epistle has therefore been long recognized as one of the Pastoral Epistles, so called because of the nature of the matters discussed. We still today recognize the Book as one of basic instruction for church order and life. 

The Epistles deals with all kind of subjects, and 1 Timothy covers the general subject of worship.  Chapter 2 is really only a subdivision of the Epistle as a whole.   

Both the letters to Timothy and to Titus concern 

“1.  The errors of the false teachers and proper response to them (1 Timothy 1: 3-20; 4: 1-10; 6: 3-10; Titus 1: 10-2: 1; 3: 9-11; 2 Timothy 2: 14-4:5) and

2.      The strict qualifications for ministries in the light of the opponents activities ( 1 Timothy 3: 1-13; Titus 1: 5-9).  Not unrelated to this situation are

3.      other regulations on Church order (1 Timothy 2:1- 3:1; 5: 3-25; Titus 2: 1-14) and on the conduct of believers (1 Timothy 6: 1-2; Titus 3: 1-8).  As is the case in the other Pauline letters, all the teachings are given

4.      a christological basis in salvation history (1 Timothy 3: 16; Titus 2: 11-14), including Christ’s identity with God (Titus 2: 13), pre-existence (1 Timothy 1: 15), human Davidic descent (2 Timothy 2: 8), faithful ministry (1 Timothy 6: 13), saving work (1 Timothy 2: 5-6; 2 Timothy 1: 9-10), resurrection (2 Timothy 2: 8), and future coming and reign (1 Timothy 6: 14; 2 Timothy 2: 11-12; 4: 8, 18).

In chapter 2 Paul gave some directions for women, and gave what were specific instructions as to how they should behave, and to their position with respect to the ministry of teaching, and limitations with respect to the authority that they could wield. 

The sex roles are clearly evident from verse 8.  The ‘silence’ follows with the progression of thought in verse 8 and 9.  

All church history experts agree that the text 1 Timothy 2:9-15, had for approximately 1800 years, been interpreted as placing limitations on the ministries of women.  Any new reading therefore has to deal with this fact, for a new reading will challenge long, generally accepted interpretations.  Let us hear from one historian. I emphasize that this statement is universally accepted. 

“For about 18 centuries, 1 Timothy 2: 12, as well as 1 Corinthians 14: 34 and related texts, was assumed to have a clear and self-evident meaning.  Then, rather abruptly, some, hardly a quarter century ago, began to “discover” a different meaning in the apostle’s words.  Did God suddenly permit “more light to break forth from his holy Word”, as the old Congregationalist put it?  Or is there reason to suspect that the many modern interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 are primarily the result of certain conscious or unconscious presuppositions?” 

One theologian, S. Lewis Johnson, who has written on this matter, and looked at the argument that Galatians 3: 28 teaches contrary to 1 Timothy 2: 12, argues: 

“Never could the Apostle Paul have envisioned the place of Galatians 3: 28 in contemporary evangelical literature.  The issues of sexually equality and societal roles in modern society, however, have done what Paul could not have imagined”. 

He examined the writings of the major Church figures that we have available, from Ignatius to Augustine, to Luther and Calvin and then stated: 

“From this brief survey it appears that none of the major teachers in the history of the Church thought Galatians 3: 28 abolished the male-female role distinction in marriage or the Church.” 

Let me make clear that Seventh Day Baptist theology and approach to Scriptures concurs with this interpretation stated above. 

The attempts to reinterpret 1 Timothy 2: 12 is clearly a new interpretation.  This does not necessarily make it incorrect, but it puts us on guard to examine this new interpretation very carefully. 

Those who support a reinterpretation of the text, and argue for the full inclusion of women in all ministries, support their position by arguing that:

1.      There were prophetesses in the Old Testament and New Testament that were authoritative messengers of God.  This involved exercise of authority.  If women can prophesy, they can perform any ministry.

2.      Women taught, and had spiritual gifts, and as such were given gifts to be used without limitation.

3.      They are called fellow workers and laborers by Paul, and were thus fully included in ministry.  The fact that they are called fellow-laborers, and some are said to labor much in the Lord, suggest that women were leaders in the congregations.

4.      Women functioned in official positions in the Church because they held the office of deacon. 

5.      There is some evidence that women could function as elders.

6.      There is some evidence that a woman was an Apostle, and thus women cannot be denied full participation.

7.      Because of the above, 1 Timothy 2: 11-15, and 1 Corinthians 14: 33-36 should not be used to impose limitations on women today.  The Timothy passage was written to forbid only false teaching by women, or preventing uneducated women from teaching men.  The Corinthians passage was written to correct a problem in the congregation where women were disrupting the assembly by speaking in tongues or by interrupting the service by asking questions.  The two passages are designed to correct abuses by women in teaching, not to forbid any teaching of men whatsoever.

8.      There are some additional arguments that assume that some Scriptures contradict other Scriptures.  This has to do partly with what is called the “documentary hypothesis” which considers that Genesis 1,2, and 3 were constructed inaccurately by editors which were a little confused.

9.      There are other additional arguments that accept that Paul was restricting the role of women, but this position related only to that culture and time, and is not applicable today.

10.  Some writers, like William O. Walker throw out as ‘inauthentic’ the passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Timothy, Titus, and related portions in Ephesians and Colossians.  This leaves only Galatians 3:28.  The other passages are considered to be non-Pauline.

11.  Some like Wayne A. Meeks say that Paul was unclear.

12.  Joyce Erickson states that Paul was completely biased.

13.  Richard C. Devor states that Paul was mistaken. Paul K. Jewett and Klyne R. Snodgrass say the same thing.  Jewett stated that Paul could not get his rabbinical training squared up with the idea of freedom and equality he talked about in Galatians.

14.  Patricia Gundry simply wrote off what Paul said about women as culturally oriented, for a particular people and occasion.

It must be recognized that some make an attempt to prove their case by reference to the lives of women in the Bible.  We would have to see whether or not those assessments are accurate, and their interpretations self- consistent. 

Others either reject the parts of the Scriptures with which they do not agree, or attack the inspiration of Paul and other Apostles who comment on the role of women. 

The positions that dismiss apostolic teachings in the Scripture as culturally oriented, open a can of worms for those who accept the truth of the Bible. This position is particularly awkward for those people who accept the Scriptures as completely correct, and who are Sabbath keepers. 

In any case, we know that Paul did not base his instructions on culture, but always based his teachings about the purpose of the Church and roles that members play in it, on the teachings of the Old Testament.  In 1 Corinthians 14: 34 Paul made it clear that his teaching was consistent with the “law”.  In 1 Timothy 2: 13-14, he established his teachings about the silence of women on the teachings of Genesis 2. 

There are principles therefore on which Paul's teachings are based, and therefore one cannot honestly say that the Apostle’s teaching that women should not take a leadership role in the meetings of the Church was based on culture. 

When God created his order, his people were established as God's showpiece.  He uses the Church to show his truth to the world, and to the angelic hosts. 

Ephesians 3: 10 stated that it is through the Church that God shows his manifold wisdom to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.  

None of these new positions on women were accepted until the rise of feminism in the secular society, dating from some years ago.   

The earliest Church documents do not seem to support this ‘reinterpreted’ position.  For example, when the Roman Church came into its power and glory, it had no need to make any changes with respect to the roles of women, so it concentrated its considerable efforts to eliminate Sabbath worship and other uniquely ‘ Jewish’ institutions. 

Nobody thought that the role of women in ministry needed reinterpretation until the rise of feminism in the North American society and Church. 

WHAT DOES THE TEXT SEEM TO SAY?

We will look at this text in Timothy before we examine the claims proposed by those who favor a ministry of women without limitations.

Paul seems to be quite emphatic in this passage, for he again stresses his apostolic authority before he gives this instruction.  He emphasizes that he is speaking the truth, and that the truth and his personal position are one and the same. 

He calls on the women for modesty and soberness in their dress, and separates sharply the behavior of godly women from the ‘beautifying’ carried out by the secular women.  Their appearance should be simple, moderate, judicious, and free from ostentation.  They should not allow the pagan world to set standards for them.  The beauty of godly women should come from their righteousness, displayed by their good works.  They should adorn themselves, ‘literally’, by means of good deeds. 

If they were women who profess to worship God, they should reject the world's standards for measuring beauty, and adopt the standards of Heaven. 

Paul here agrees with Peter that godly women should have the “unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in the sight of God”. (1 Peter 3: 4) 

Paul then goes on to instruct that women are “to learn in silence with all subjection”.  Women are not to teach or challenge the established authority that men had.  They should “be in silence”.  They should learn or receive instruction with quietness and full submission. 

There are several elements involved here.  There is the concept of “silence”, “submission” or “subjection”, “authority given to males”, and “usurping of male authority forbidden”. 

With respect to quietness, let us deal with it here.  The word is “heusychia” which is translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2: 11 and “silent” in verse 12.  It does not mean complete silence or no talking.  It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22: 2; 2 Thess. 3: 12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly”.  A different word, “sigaou” means “to be silent, to say nothing” (Luke 18: 39; 1 Cor. 14: 34) Women are thus instructed to be settled down (this seemed to have been a problem for them), and to behave with order, under the authority of the Elders.  It certainly specifically restricts their freedom, but does not totally eliminate it. 

Let us realize that a quiet and submissive spirit manifests an understanding and acceptance of God's design for the human race. 

Of course, other Scriptures written by Paul also discuss these concepts.  We will look at them later.  But let us look at Paul's concept of teaching, and why, given God’s design for the human race, it was forbidden for women to usurp the teaching and authority role that men were given. 

TEACHING

It is easily recognized than teachers exercise a great deal of authority over the people they teach.  They encourage, admonish, motivate, and discipline, monitor, rebuke, correct, model, and hinder progress if considered necessary. 

We must be clear that ‘teaching’, which the Church does, is not the same as  ‘facilitating’, or reading a lesson from a book.  The word ‘teaching’ in Scriptures, has a much more serious and significant meaning. We just cannot give words in Scripture any meaning we like. 

There is great authority involved here which goes beyond the authoritative message.  Teachers take steps to ensure that pupils obey the message, and they rely on several things to do that. 

Ronald Pierce states:

“To teach (didaskein) in the Jewish rabbinical context of the New Testament Church certainly carried with it an emphasis that surpassed our modern conception of transmitting data or educating persons in an academic sense.  It even went beyond authoritative proclamation of religious truth, to include a mentoring relationship between teacher and student analogous to the master/disciple motif in the New Testament.  This is supported by the connection of the term with the function of “overseer/elder” in 1 and 2 Timothy, Timothy 3: 2; for 4:11-16; 5: 17; 2 Timothy 2: 2; 4: 2) 

Elsewhere the master/disciple relationship connoted by “didaskalos” is illustrated in two accounts of Jesus’ ministry.  In Matthew 23: 8 he uses the noun as a synonym for “Rabbi”.  Moreover the connotation of power or authority is so strong in that context that Jesus forbids his disciples to invoke the titles in this sense for anyone beside God.”  

Given the words that Paul uses, (in Greek ‘aujqentevw’ as well as ‘dvidavskw’) Paul was not simply talking about a prohibition about teaching in the sense of communicating truth, that is, teaching Bible and doctrine, but was concerned with prohibitions in the area of spiritual, moral, and ethical authority associated with that truth.   

In classical Greek “didavskw”,  “is the word used more especially for the impartation of practical or theoretical knowledge when there is continued activity with a view to gradual, systematic and therefore all the more fundamental assimilation”. 

In the Septuagint, the word emphasizes “the volitional as well as the intellectual.  It deals with the whole man and his education in the deepest sense.  The emphasis is on doing the will of God”. 

The majority of the Bible passages that include the use of this word imply that not only is authority exercised, but as well information is communicated. 

Teaching is associated with exhortation. (Romans 12: 7; 15: 4; 16: 17; 1 Timothy 1: 3; 4: 13; 6: 2; Titus 1: 9. 

The teacher should be an example to those he teaches.  The pupils should imitate him and follow his example. (1 Cor. 4:16; 11: 1; Ephesians 5: 1; Philippians 3: 17. 

The teacher should keep track of the progress of his pupils.  Teachers are accountable to God for keeping watch over the lives of the pupils. (Hebrews 13: 23) That's why they will incur a stricter judgment. (James 3:1) 

A teacher reinforces his teaching through admonishment, correction, rebuke and Church discipline.  

Several overlapping Greek words are used to make this clear.  The teacher therefore is there to point out doctrinal errors, show the evidence of the error, point out the wrong behavior and explain why it is wrong, point out right doctrine, and encourage right behavior. 

It is clear that the teaching involves communicating doctrine and ethical matters, holding people accountable and helping them assimilate spiritual and ethical teachings into their lives. 

The Timothy passage therefore indicates that the Church had a problem with false teachers.  Timothy was instructed to refute the false teachers, to teach the doctrine of the Apostles, to promote proper conduct in the Church, to select qualified church leaders, and to make sure that they and the Church behaved in a godly fashion. 

Paul encourages the women to modesty and good works, and then instructs them to learn.  This is not to learn in absolute silence, but with a quiet spirit. 

They are to learn, to be in submission, not to teach men, and not to exercise authority. 

When Paul prohibits teaching, demands that women not exercise authority over men, and exhorts the women to learn, Paul uses a special word (ejpitrevpw) to indicate an exercise of his apostolic function.  This is not his opinion or a temporary situation. 

He supports his instructions by showing why a universal principal is being applied.  He does this in verses 13-14. 

Paul bases his instructions on the Creation and the Fall.  He refers to Genesis 2, when man and woman were in the pre-Fall state, rather than on Genesis 3, which is in the post-Fall state, a post-Fall state where redemption is necessary. 

The functional subordination of women therefore, in this passage, as it is in all of Paul's passages (1 Cor. 11: 2-16; 14: 34-35; Ephesians 5: 22-33; 1 Timothy 2: 12-13), is linked to the pre-Fall state.   

This is one of the most damaging arguments against the egalitarian position.  Why?  Redemption restores both roles, and husband and wife, or man and woman, returns to their respective roles, when they, redeemed, resume following Christ.  Of course, now subordination and submission remains as in the pre-Fall state, but they will not abuse their respective roles, because they are now following Christ. 

Man’s priority in creation, and the fact that woman was created to be an helper for him, underlay Paul's argument that women are given a role of submission, for this was their created purpose, and it is the role in which she would be most fulfilled.  The first reason therefore is Adam’s priority in creation. 

The second reason that Paul gives is the deception of Eve.  It was Eve that was deceived by the serpent.  She was the deceived victim, and she admits this in Genesis 3: 13.   

Note however that Eve is not responsible for the Fall.  Adam bears the blame totally for that. (Romans 5: 19). Responsibility therefore fell on man, and he was not allowed to shirk his responsibility, and let the blame fall on the shoulders of the woman. The situation has not changed. 

Since we know that Paul and the Apostles allowed women to teach other woman and children, there is no suggestion that women are more gullible or intellectually inferior to men, or that women in general are easily but temporarily deceived by false teaching, or were simply uneducated. Indeed, Jesus commended Mary for sitting in on his teaching session, while her sister Martha was preoccupied with fixing a meal. (Luke 10: 38-42) 

It seems to suggest rather that when the woman, created to be man’s helper and subordinate to him, acts independently when confronted with temptation, both will fall.  No reversal of the created order must take place. 

It is not that women cannot understand right doctrine. The problem seems to be in how they respond when doctrine and relationships clash.  Satan knew this, and so he approached Eve to undermine the order of male leadership, and create a relationship with her, that would make it difficult for her to implement the negative aspects of rebuke and discipline that Satan needed.   

Women as a rule, certainly seem to be more caring and relational that men.  When in this kind of situation, as in Eden, when the right doctrine and a relationship come into conflict, women seem less likely to show the toughness necessary for rebuke that Satan needed, and that Adam would probably have provided. Children know this instinctively, so they generally go to Mom to have her change her mind and relax the rules. She is too nurturing and caring by nature to resist. 

Paul indicates that when women focus on their role of child bearing, they will not fall into Eve’s error of reversing male and female roles.   

The role of women, which is not exercising a teaching or leadership role, should be considered as a significant role.  It is deception to think otherwise.  When their role is combined with faith, love, and holiness, they will be assured of an important role in the Church and in the work of God.  

Given this therefore, women are prohibited from teaching and exercising authority over men, because of the creation order, and the tendency to be deceived into thinking that relationships take priority over doctrine, even non- negotiable issues.  Eve's behavior teaches us that the roles God laid down before the Fall, were well designed.  If they were followed, as all the commandments of God must be followed, life would be much smoother. 

It is interesting to note that the article “What does the Bible say about women in ministry?”  by Betty Miller, falsely claims that there was no hint of anything but equal authority between man and woman, as they existed in a sinless state. 

She ignores the fact that Eve was taken “out” from Adam, and established as a helpmeet for him.  It was to Adam that God gave original instructions, and it was he that named all living things.  After Adam continued his work and interacted with the animals and with the creation, Eve was made from Adam's body to complement him.  Clearly, there was no element of abuse but perfect love.   

To argue therefore that there was no difference in authority is very disingenuous, and contrary to Scripture.  In addition, it is contrary to several Scriptures, and call’s Paul's interpretation wrong. To challenge an Apostle is not only heresy, but it is a denial of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Inerrancy and complete truth of the Scriptures.  

On page 2, she shows she is against the plain interpretation of Galatians 3:28 which the Church has accepted for nearly 2000 years. She treats Galatians 3:28 as referring to functional social roles rather than salvation roles, destroying the deep truth of the text. The entire Book of Galatians deals with this at great length, namely, that we all come to Christ by faith, that no one starts out better than anyone else.   

Paul is not speaking about role relationships of men and women in the body of Christ, but rather with their common entry into it through faith and baptism, and what this means.  The male and female distinction has its roots in creation. 

In Galatians, we are told we are saved on the basis of faith.  We must never trivialize this passage, and turn it into a comment about social structures in the home or the Church.

She makes this astounding statement:

“ All those who receive Jesus as Saviour receive restoration as Sons of God, but not all of us walk in that restoration-- yet.  Through Jesus, the curse upon women has been lifted.  Women no longer have to receive pain in childbirth nor are they inferior to man with him ruling over them.  Women can now be restored to their original place and plan that God had for all his “sons”.  Although we do not see all things restored at this time, “legally” in the spiritual realm they already have been.” 

I hope your realize that the statement about restoration, and not walking in restoration, the lifting of the curse, no pain in childbirth, inferiority to man, restoration legally in the spiritual realm, are all either unbiblical concepts, or distortions of what the Bible teaches about the proper relationship between men and women.   

Let us see if we can now examine the Bible to ascertain if it supports the ‘new’ interpretations, and whether or not there are distortions in the ‘old’ interpretations. 

THE PROPHETESSES 

One argument for women to be placed in positions of authority relies on the prophetic role women played in Scriptures.  Reference is made to Deborah, who was an authoritative messenger of God.  Other examples are Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14-20), who was consulted by the messengers of Josiah, Miriam, the sister of Moses (Exodus 15: 20), who led the women in singing about God's triumph over Egypt, Anna, who spoke of Jesus when he was brought into the Temple (Luke 2: 36-38), and Philip’s four daughters who prophesied. (Acts 21:9) As well, there are references to other ‘true’ and ‘false’ prophetesses. 

Some conclude therefore that if women functioned as prophets, authoritatively declaring the Word of God for the edification of the people of God, they can perform any ministry.  Prophecy is just as authoritative as teaching. 

The evidence from prophecy however actually supports the idea that women had a supportive and complimentary role, and that role distinctions between men and women were maintained. 

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 affirms that women can prophesy, but even when doing so, they are to do so in a way and with a attitude that does not violate male headship.  She is to prophesy properly adorned, showing her submissiveness.  The possession of, and the exercise of prophetic gifts have to conform to the ordained pattern in the Church. 

We know of course that Miriam was punished for joining with Aaron to overthrow Moses.  God did not considered either her or Aaron as correct in stepping out of their roles.   

In addition, Miriam is recorded as ministering only to women.  Her ministry therefore is no exception to the rule of non-violation of male headship. 

In the case of Huldah, she did not publicly proclaim God's word, but told in private the instructions of the Lord to Josiah’s messengers.  Note that she was clearly devout, and everyone recognized that she was a prophetess.  God spoke to her even though there was a High Priest and other Temple officialdom, which exercised the role of leadership and the exercising of authority in the nation. 

Her ministry is not recorded as a public ministry, even though she dwelt in the ‘ college’ in Jerusalem.  It appears that the public part of the prophetic ministry was assigned to Jeremiah.  See Jeremiah 1:1-3. 

Let us be careful now.  Huldah prophesied during a period of Judah’s history when the nation was sliding toward its doom.  The truth was almost lost, and godly leadership was not common. This does not detract anything from the powerful and authoritative ministry of Huldah, which was well recognized.  But it does indicate that her ministry fitted the normal pattern. 

The case of Deborah is of course a very interesting one.  But it too does not argue against a supportive and complementary role for women who prophesy.   

Deborah seems to be the only judge in the Book of Judges that had no military function.  Other judges led Israel to victory in battle. In the exercise of her prophetic function, Deborah's role in military matters, and in the deliverance of Israel, is confined to receiving a word from God, to tell Barak that he is to go fight and deliver the nation. 

Deborah does not assert leadership for herself but gives the priority to a man.  When he is not willing to go to battle without her, she implied a rebuke by telling him that the glory for the victory would go to a woman, not to her, but to Jael. Judges 4:6-17. 

Clearly, the spiritual climate in Israel had gone bitterly cold.  The nation was in a cycle of gross disobedience, oppression by enemies, crying out to God, a Deliverer sent, freedom, good behavior for a few years, and then disobedience again. 

Things were really bad in Israel.  There were no men brave enough to lead.  In addition, even with Deborah generally recognized, as a prophetess, and a Judge, a significant part of Israel did not heed her call. (See 5:15b-17) 

Things were so bad in Israel that it took a woman, who was married to a traitor to Israel (4:17), to stay loyal to Israel and kill the enemy Sisera, despite her husband’s disloyalty. 

Deborah's and Jael’s obedience to God in the midst of this disaster allowed by males in Israel, stand out as an example to all women of God. 

Certainly though, Deborah did occupy an unusual position as prophetess and judge.  It seems that not all the tribes recognized her, but nevertheless, she did her work, and her attitude and demeanor was such that she was not asserting her leadership, despite the horrible, horrible behavior of the men.  Instead, she handed over the leadership, contrary to the pattern of all the other judges, to a man. 

Note also that Deborah did not appear to prophesy in public. Her prophetic role seemed to have been limited to private instruction. See Judges 4:5.  She did not go out publicly to proclaim the word of God like the other male prophets in Scriptures. 

When she spoke to Barak, she called him and speaks to him privately (Judges 4: 6, 14).  Both Deborah and Barak sing even the song of praise in Judges 5:1. 

In the case of the prophetesses referred to in the New Testament, there is no evidence that they strayed away from the apostolic restrictions when exercising their gift. 

Some commentators speak of a difference between prophecy and teaching.  It is said: 

“Prophecy is based on spontaneous revelation (1 Corinthians 14: 29-33), while teaching is an exposition of received revelation.  A prophet, therefore, does not hold the same office as a teacher.  Prophets speak forth God's revelation to the people, but the people go to the Priests in the Old Testament to receive authoritative instruction based on tradition (Leviticus 10: 11; Deuteronomy 21: 5; Malachi 2:6-7).  It is instructive to note that in the Old Testament that some women were prophets, but never Priests.  It is the Priests who had the more settled and established positions of leadership in Israel.  This is not to deny that the Old Testament prophets spoke with great authority.  Indeed, they criticized Priests who abused their authority.  The point is that prophecy is a different kind of gift from teaching, and when women functioned as prophets, they did so with a demeanor and attitude that supported male leadership. 

In addition, Wayne Grudem has argued that the gift of prophecy in the New Testament is not the same as the prophetic gift in the Old Testament.  Old Testament prophets spoke the word of the Lord, and what they said was absolutely authoritative-no part of it could be questioned or challenged.  But the words of New Testament prophets do not have this same kind of absolute authority.

Paul calls on the church to sort and sift the good from the bad in prophetic utterances:

“Do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess. 5:20-21).

When Paul says, “two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said “ 1 Cor. 14: 29), he uses a verb for “weigh carefully” (diakrino) that means “to sort or sift some things from others”.  This implies that in New Testament prophecies, not every word would be understood to be the word of God.  By contrast, in the Old Testament, a prophet who spoke anything untrue was to be put the death (Deuteronomy 13: 1-5; 18: 20-22).  Instead, New Testament prophecies are handled not as authoritative words from God but as spontaneous impressions or insights that may or may not be either in whole or in part, from God.  Thus the church must judge and evaluate prophecies in order to determine whether they, either in whole or in part, are sound”. 

That is probably why the Apostle Paul placed such emphasis on the gift of teaching, and treated teaching differently from prophesying.  In any case the biblical teaching on women prophets does not contradict, but supports male leadership in the Church.  

In fact, prophecy is not identical to preaching, but involves both forthtelling and foretelling.  The message that the prophet of God gets from God is not filtered through any process of interpretation, but is directly mediated by the Spirit. 

The prophets many times therefore, did not understand totally the meaning of what they were prophesying, and they often had to pray to God to get clarification.  In some cases, this clarification was denied to them.  The prophet Daniel for example, was told to seal up the Book. 

In effect, prophecies are called “tamper proof”, because when God the Spirit sends the message, the “instrument” must do or relay the message.  That is what Balaam found out. 

The reason therefore why women may prophesy but not teach or preach to men is, because her prophetic message, assuming she is a true prophet, comes directly unfiltered, and is not interpreted.  Teaching on the other hand, is not “tamper proof”, but involves filtering through the interpretive process. 

The teaching up the Scriptures forbids this role to women, for the reasons outlined and discussed above.

DID PRISCILLA TEACH APOLLO S? 

Much is sometimes made over the belief that Acts 18: 26 said that Priscilla taught Apollos, and that therefore 1 Timothy 2:12 could not mean that women may not teach men. 

This of course assumed that the word used to Acts 18: 26 to describe what was done with Apollos meant the same as the word ‘ to teach’ used in 1 Timothy 2:12. 

Luke is the only writer in the New Testament that uses the verb “ejktivqhmi”, and he uses it only in Acts 7:21; 11:14; 18:26; 28:23.  The word basically means to “lay out” or “expose”, and when it is used about information being passed on it tends to be restricted to simple explanations without urging or rhetorical persuasiveness. 

In Acts 11: 4 therefore, the word is used to describe Peter simply laying out the details of his visit to Joppa.  He is relating a series of historical events and only after verse 17 does he ask a question, and then move into exhortation, which is not a part of “ejktivqhmi”. 

A detailed word study shows that the word and its associated cognates does not have the force of the word used in the Timothy passage with respect to exhortation. 

The text certainly makes clear that Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos privately aside and laid out for him more accurately an understanding of the Christian faith. This was not a mere history lesson, but it was not primarily or even secondarily, exhortional. It was a historical-doctrinal explanation of the Christian faith, based on what Paul instructed them, and the facts they knew of the historical Jesus, since he knew only the baptism of John. 

But this was done in private, and by both Priscilla and Aquila. 

We can see what the “laying out” consisted of. Verse 28 tells us Apollos took from this a more detailed and accurate view of Jesus, which allowed him to mightily and publicly convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

 To suggest that the text indicates that Priscilla did most of the teaching, or even took part in the teaching or explanations, even though she might very well have, is not quite accurate. 

What is more important however, is that which Aquila and Priscilla did was not the authoritative instruction that 1 Timothy speaks of. 

In any case, nothing really states that a Christian husband and wife team cannot visit unbelievers and believers and work together in the proper fashion to present the Gospel. Whether she has permission to exhort men on the basis of those facts is both outside the scope of Acts 18:26 and its context, and is proscribed in 1 Timothy 2:12.

 A wife can aid her husband in many ways in the mission work. But more about that later.

WAS JUNIA AMONG THE APOSTLE? 

Romans 16:7 refers to a person named Junia, which apparently is referred to as an apostle.  This single verse is used to support an argument that Junia is a female name, and if a female was described as an apostle, and authoritative messenger of God, this provides support for a unrestricted female ministry. 

The meaning of the verse is unclear in several ways, and this gives rise to two major interpretive problems. 

First, it cannot be definitely established that Junia was a woman.  The name may be a shortening of a man's name Junianus. 

Second, even if Andronicus and Junia are outstanding apostles, a perfectly correct and possible alternative interpretation of the text could read not that they were apostles, but that they were “outstanding in the eyes of the apostle” 

Third, even if Paul is referring to Junia, a woman, as a distinguished apostle, the question is what is meant by the word ‘apostle’.  Is Paul giving her the same position as himself, or the Twelve, or James (1 Cor. 15: 7; Galatians 1: 19).  We know that the word ‘ apostle’ could be used in a non- technical sense to mean “messengers” or “representatives” (2 Cor. 8: 23; Philippians 2: 25). 

The verse is really too ambiguous to establish the idea that there were female apostles into technical sense. 

But let me explain further.  If the name had an accent (jIounia’n) it would be a man's name.  If it had what is called an acute accent in a certain place (the penult –jIounivan), then it would be a woman’s name. 

Unfortunately the accents in the Greek New Testament manuscripts were not added until the ninth century.  Up until then, the name was generally considered a man's name. 

Some of the Latin Church fathers sometime before and into the 12th century felt that it was a woman's name, because three instances of Junia as a woman's name had been found in Greek literature.  Junia was a common female Latin name, and more common man's name in an extended form Junianas was frequent in Latin and Greek writings, with the shortened name, when used for a male, seem to be a nickname. 

The data does not exist now to make a decisive judgment as to whether it is a feminine or a masculine name. 

In any case, most commentaries and translations regard the name Junia as one of the apostles in a non technical sense, though this is based on very scanty evidence. 

Some translators prefer to translate the phrase in Romans 16: 7 as “well-known to the apostles” as against “outstanding among the apostles”.  There is really not enough evidence to support the assumption that Junia, male or female, was an apostle in the special sense that is used for the word then or even nowadays. 

Anyone who argues therefore, that the Church appointed female apostles, and in a very few years after Jesus’ resurrection, when Jesus himself had not done so, is making some pretty strong assumptions. It is hardly likely. 

Indeed, Jesus did not select a single female apostle.  Some argue that Jesus was under “cultural constraints” that made ministry of women “unacceptable”.  It is therefore amazing that given this argument, the culture could have changed so dramatically in a few years, that the appointments of women apostles became feasible. We know from history that no such dramatic change occurred. 

But we know that Jesus never gave in to cultural pressures when a moral principle was at stake.  He associated with tax collector and sinners, healed on Sabbath, praised