“Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 exclude women from ordination?”

ABSTRACT

The question of whether the apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, prohibits women from being “ordained” is a controversial one. This text has frequently been used to exclude women from leadership and teaching roles in the church. However, there is a new perspective emerging on the interpretation of this passage of Scripture and on the appropriate application of this text to our modern world. Although a singular conclusive interpretation has not been reached, I believe that the contemporary egalitarian position is a more balanced argument. This view sees this text as “context-specific” to the church at Ephesus during a time of upheaval and not applicable to all churches for all time. The broader emphasis of the Scriptures points to a “partnership” between men and women, each using their God-given gifts for the benefit of others. Therefore, if a woman has a gift of teaching or leadership, opportunity should be provided for her to minister for the good of the church, just as it should be for a man with either of these gifts.

“Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 exclude women from ordination? “

INTRODUCTION

In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the apostle Paul says, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (NIV) These verses have caused much discussion and debate, especially in recent years, as to whether or not women can have leadership roles in the church. This passage (along with 1 Cor.14:33-35) has often been used to silence women in the church and to restrict them from positions of leadership.

A few things should be noted: this is a very complex issue, debate is healthy and necessary, and it is possible that we will never reach a consensus on this matter. As we read the Bible, we do not do so in a vacuum. We all come to the Scriptures with inherited church tradition and personal experiences, which can easily colour our interpretation. As a result, there is not one “orthodox” position and another “heretical” position. There are a variety of views and numerous styles of implementation within two main camps.

The two views that have emerged as the major, viable, Biblically based options are the “hierarchical view” and the “egalitarian view”. We will summarise them briefly then seek to address the question, “Does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 exclude women from ordination?”. In doing so, I am not going to seek to establish the “true” interpretation of this controversial passage. What I plan to do is to address how we can work out a theology of the sexes when the one text that has been quoted as the ultimate proof of one point of view cannot gain an agreed upon interpretation.

THE HIERARCHICAL VIEW

The hierarchical view generally permits women to be involved in ministry but sees the Bible giving timeless restrictions on women as the authoritative teacher in the church, often associated with the office of elder (presbyter)

or overseer.

This view interprets Paul’s words to Timothy at Ephesus as an indication that God’s will is for women to refrain from teaching or leading (having authority) within the church community. These two functions are to be reserved for the men. Therefore, no woman should be “ordained” or given a position of authority within the church at any time.

Proponents of this view recognise that Paul’s letter is occasional in character, nevertheless, they believe that it continues to speak authoritatively to all times and cultures as a theological or ethical norm. Therefore, Paul’s instructions are forever binding on those who embrace the authority of the Scriptures. This fundamentalist approach believes that what the text says must apply one for one in every place for all time.

They argue that Paul’s reasons for establishing this binding instruction is the “order of creation”, which they conclude establishes a permanent and transcultural “legitimate role difference between men and women”. Man and woman are both made in the image of God. Therefore, they are “equal as persons”. However, they are “different in role” (or function). Man was created to be the leader and to rule because he was created first. Women were created to serve and support as a “helper” to man. This “creation order” is God’s ideal given before sin entered the world and is no way annulled by the coming of Christ.

Women are to always submit to men’s ultimate leadership in the church and the home. This subordination of women is not seen as making them in any way inferior as persons. It should be noted that this modern day hierarchical approach is different to the many church leaders throughout history who have seen women as inferior ontologically (because she was created second) and as more prone to sin and error than men.

Genesis 3 is the story of how the woman usurped a role of leadership in place of her husband, her “head”. This resulted in both of them disobeying God’s commandment and reaping severe consequences (Gen.3:16). For some hierarchicalists, Eve’s sin demonstrates that “women are more liable to deception, more gullible, and more easily led astray than men.”

Jesus treated women well but made it clear that only men should be leaders in the church community, illustrated by his appointment of twelve male apostles. Paul taught that man is the “head” of the woman (1 Cor.11:3) and that the husband is the “head” of the wife (Eph.5:22). Wives are to be subordinate to their husbands, clearly showing that men and women have different roles (Eph.5:22. Col.3:21. 1 Peter 2:18). Because the “headship” role has been given to men in the home, they should lead in the church. Women should not exercise authority in the home or the church, especially through teaching men (1 Cor.14:34-35. 1 Tim.2:11-12).

Modern day hierarchicalists are usually open to women speaking and ministering in the church community, which is consistent with other texts written by Paul about the activities of women in the early church. However, any ministries they are involved in are subordinate to male leadership within the church and women should not function as pastors, elders or overseers. In contrast, a stricter and more literal application of this text has occurred throughout most of church history where absolute silence has often been demanded.

Any other than this “historic” interpretation is often seen as being unfaithful to the authority of the Scriptures and as giving in to the “liberalising attitudes to women’s and men’s identities and roles” of our modern culture. To reject this clear Biblical teaching of the different roles of men and women is to reject the authority of the Bible. Egalitarians who argue for the equality of the sexes have given in to the spirit of our age.

THE EGALITARIAN VIEW

The egalitarian view agrees that the Biblical writers did in their day forbid women from holding certain leadership positions in specific situations, but that the rationales for these restrictions do not necessarily transcend time and culture (similar to the fact that we no longer wash one another’s feet or require women to wear hats in church). Egalitarians stress the equality of men and women, not merely in personhood and salvation, but in opportunities to hold every office and to minister in every role that exists in the church.

This view interprets Paul’s words to Timothy at Ephesus as a specific instruction for women to refrain from teaching or leading (having authority)

within the church community at that time. Paul commands women not to teach in church or exercise authority because certain women were teaching heresy in Ephesus. Paul had generally encouraged the ministry of women in the life of the church, so it was only when the behaviour of some women threatened the well being of the church that Paul gave these “exceptional rulings”.

Egalitarians do not see Paul’s supporting reasons, where he makes reference to Adam and Eve, as establishing any permanent or binding “order” within the home or church. They see that the Biblical ideal is “equality of consideration and equality of opportunity to use God-given gifts, which may include teaching and exercising authority by women.” Paul’s prohibition on women teaching or exercising authority is “historically and culturally limited to the context in which they were addressed.”

Man and woman were both created in the “image of God”, equal in dignity and status. God has revealed himself as one God existing in three persons dwelling together in perfect unity and partnership. Adam and Eve were created to reflect this image through their partnership in taking dominion over creation (the dominion mandate) and populating the earth (the domestic mandate). They had a shared leadership responsibility using their complementary spiritual gifts to carry out these God-given tasks (see Gen.1:26-27). There is no subordination of the woman before the fall.

Unfortunately, both Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and this sin damaged God’s creation and dramatically affected our world and especially human relationships. “Gender Wars” and the “battle of the sexes” entered humanity. Mindsets like male chauvinism and then, more recently, the rise of secular feminism, demonstrate this tension. The fall brought division and dominance, which resulted in a broken, fractured relationship that left partnership behind and established hierarchy in its place. Before sin, man and woman ruled together. After the fall, man would “rule” over the woman (Gen.3:16-19). Male dominated societies are not part of God’s original society; they are a result of the curse. The image of God is “male and female” (Gen.1:27), not male over female or vice versa.

Hierarchicalists highlight the fact that Jesus only chose twelve men to be his apostles, which to them is an indication that women are not to function in leadership roles. However, Jesus never actually commented on the issue of whether women are to teach or have authority in the church community. Jesus most likely chose male apostles because of the custom that communal leaders at that time were men. It was also a fact that women could not be a credible witness. Giving witness to the resurrection was one of the primary roles of the first twelve apostles.

The church, God’s new community, gets back to the principles established in creation – partnership in ministry. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on men and women, old and young (Acts 2). The one hundred and twenty disciples who gathered together for prayer in the upper room were both men and women. The Spirit was poured out on all of them. All can receive and minister in the power of the Spirit regardless of gender. The male priesthood is gone. No longer one man, one gender, one nation, one tribe, one family, one age (30-50), or one day of the year like in the Old Covenant. We are a new creation and a new community of the redeemed in which all distinctions based on gender and age are laid aside.

Peter tells us in his sermon in Acts 2 that God’s intention was that, in the last phase of history, he would pour out his Spirit on all believers – so that they would prophesy (the highest OT activity). Only select, privileged individuals had access to the work of the Spirit under the Old Covenant. Now everyone, including sons and daughters, has access to this ministry because the Holy Spirit is available to all believers. Ministry was opened up to everyone, even to those who occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder. No one in the community was exempt from doing ministry and no one was excused from it.

In Galatians 3:26-28, Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (NIV). Paul tells us that we are one in Christ and that gender distinctions cease to matter. This demands an end of prejudice based on difference. This is not the end or removal of differences or distinctions; however, these can no longer be the basis for restricting our relationships and roles in the Kingdom. God’s new community lays aside all distinctions based on ethnicity, social class, gender and age. Racial, social (economic) and gender prejudice are exposed and nullified by the cross and grace of Christ. The New Covenant brings us back to the original intention of God in creation before the fall.

Spiritual gifts are given to each believer (1 Cor.12-14. Rom.12. 1 Pet.4). Gifts are given to each one as the Lord determines. There is no mention of gender qualifications or of age or marriage requirements in any of the New Testament teaching on spiritual gifts. No one is excluded or excused from spiritual gifts or ministry. Every person, regardless of gender, is individually accountable for the use of their resources – time, energy and spiritual gifts.

Women are included in many church ministries listed within the New Testament. Paul’s ministry team included women. Paul discarded his inherited cultural prejudices as uninformed and outmoded for kingdom living. He honoured the women who laboured with him in the gospel, recognising that God had created them for partnership. He released women to serve in God’s kingdom. Paul was surrounded by women in his ministry and they fulfilled various roles including leadership positions in the church (see 1 Cor.1:11. Phil. 4:1-3. Rom.16. Tit.2:3-5).

Paul refers to the husband as the head of the wife (Eph.5:22), but emphasises the servant leadership aspect exemplified by Jesus, not an authoritarian leadership style. Men and women are to complement each other standing side by side, not with the man standing over the woman. Hierarchicalists sometimes see egalitarians as seeking to establish “total sexual equivalence” , something that most egalitarians openly dispute .

WHICH VIEW?

As can be clearly seen, these two views are substantially different from each other and far enough apart to be mutually exclusive. The heart of the issue seems to be whether the Scriptures forbid women from leadership because of the “created order” or not. Neither position is conclusive, whether hierarchicalist or egalitarian. We have to decide which makes the most sense and seek to apply the principles of Scripture faithfully in our own contemporary context.

Proper hermeneutics requires that a conclusion on any subject must be drawn from what the entire Bible has to say on that subject (both directly and indirectly), not from one or two isolated texts. This difficult and controversial text must be interpreted in light of the whole context of the Scriptures.

Paul’s theology of ministry is based on the belief that all ministry in the congregation is Spirit-given and the Spirit gives these ministries to “all”, men and women (1 Cor.12:4-11. Rom.12:4-8. Eph.4:11-12). His theology is matched by his practice. He endorses the ministry of a women apostle (Rom.16:7), women prophets (1 Cor.11:5), women co-workers (Phil.4:2-3. Rom.16:6,12), women house church leaders (Col.4:15) and women teaching at the church in Ephesus for some years until he brought it to a stop for some reason. On this reading 1 Cor.11:2-16, 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are “regulative rulings dealing with women creating particular problems for some reason: not covering their heads when leading in prayer and prophesying, asking disruptive questions and possibly give false teaching authoritatively.”

The hierarchical view gives weight to 1 Tim.2:9-16, which aims at correcting a specific problem rather than Paul’s overriding theology and practice when it comes to women’s ministry. Surely texts that give Paul’s theological understanding of ministry should be taken as “normative” not his “regulative rulings that speak to specific abuses”. We should not take what is secondary and make it primary. Using this text to forbid women from teaching and leading for all time would contradict Paul’s theology and practice. It is something “exceptional” that isn’t confirmed by other texts, therefore indicating local application to the church at Ephesus at that time, not to all other churches in every situation.

To build a case for the permanent subordination of women from one or two texts in the face of numerous other texts that give freedom to women to minister and lead is weak indeed. For the sake of consistency, hierarchicalists need to show that women are permanently subordinated to men throughout the entire canon of Scripture and they should also include every sphere of society in this injunction, not just the church and the home.

This egalitarian viewpoint seems to be more congruent with the positive attitude towards women and ministry seen in the Scriptures and especially the New Testament. It is also more ethically sound in that it does not subordinate or discriminate a person based on their gender.

Men and women are all one “in Christ” and may minister and lead together in the church, God’s redemptive community. The New Covenant brings us back to all that was lost in Eden and even more.

Scriptures such 1 Timothy 2 must be interpreted in light of their local historical and cultural context, as well as in the light of all Scripture. Upon further investigation, it seems that these Scriptures have direct local application to situations where women were causing unrest within the local congregation. We must not build our practices for the contemporary church on instructions given to churches experiencing extreme dysfunction. It is conceivable that, if it had been a group of men creating the same unrest that the scripture may have read differently.

To take a literal approach to the interpretation of these scriptures would be to contradict other passages that speak about women leading, prophesying or ministering in various church gatherings (Rom.16. 1 Cor.11:4-5). In these other passages, Paul clearly demonstrates his approval of women in ministry and leadership. Therefore, the above texts cannot be used to prohibit women’ s ministry in all situations. His teaching is limited to Ephesus and to other churches facing similar crises in this period of the church’s history.

Kevin Giles summaries recent options when debating the ordination of women today:

1. Accept that the Bible permanently subordinates women to men.

2. Reject the authority of the Bible and leave the evangelical fold.

3. Seek a new interpretation of the key texts quoted to oppose women’s emancipation in the home and church.

Though each of these possibilities has found a following, Giles now sees a fourth option for evangelicals in the post-80s context. Many now believe that they can argue with a clear conscience that a text such as 1 Timothy 2:9-15 does not apply in our time. It is “context-specific” and need not be obeyed in our contemporary world.

The study of hermeneutics teaches us to ask two questions of every text: “What do these words mean in their historical context?” and “How does what is said apply to our very different historical context?” So the question becomes, “Can we apply this text directly to our contemporary context?” A solid theology demands that we hold a conversation between the authoritative norms of Scripture, the historical traditions of the church and our post-modern cultural context.

Life in Ephesus at the time of Paul was characterised by unquestioned patriarchy. Men were the leaders in the government, in religion and in the home. Public life was the domain of the men and the home was the domain of women. Both Jesus and Paul were counter-cultural in their attitude towards women. Nevertheless, Paul occasionally introduced rules for the women to ensure that the church maintained a good standing within society at that time.

What is “normative” (or “prescriptive”) and what is merely “descriptive”? Narrative simply tells us what happened back then but to what degree does it tell us what should happen now or for all time. What does Scripture actually teach and how does it apply to today?

Certain specific customs from New Testament times such as foot washing (something Jesus commanded his disciples to do – Jn.13:14) and women covering their heads during worship (1 Cor.11:2-16) are obviously not applicable to the contemporary church which exists in a completely different cultural setting. It is one thing to rightly interpret these texts through sound exegesis. It is quite another thing to rightly apply them to our culture through sound hermeneutics.

We must carefully determine how to properly respond to apostolic commands, directives and exhortations today, whether that is as a literal application, a principle to be applied or something that is no longer relevant (such as taking Paul his cloak and scrolls – 2 Tim.4:13).

Many hierarchicalists criticise this approach to hermeneutics, expressing concern that it undermines the authority of Scripture and opens the way for the arbitrary endorsement of other practices forbidden by the New Testament such as homosexuality. However, this reaction is highly emotive, as egalitarians do not endorse homosexuality because there is clearly not one positive mention in the entire Scriptures supporting this particular lifestyle. Also, in relation to the issue of the ordination of women, we are looking at a justice matter as to whether women should be discriminated against. The matter of homosexuality is a morality issue, in that this sort of behaviour is clearly against God’s laws regarding sexuality as revealed in the Scriptures.

CONCLUSION

Theological debates like this have occurred all throughout church history and have often resulted in differing outcomes, each building a strong Biblical case for their side of the issue. With the issue of women in leadership there is no clear consensus and two or three positions exist, each vigorously defended by their proponents. Thankfully, this issue does not involve the fundamental core beliefs of Christianity (upon which our salvation depends) and therefore, it is important for both sides to disagree in love and to move ahead with the work of the church despite their differences.

I believe that ministry and leadership within the church should be based on godliness and giftedness not gender. Hence, if a person has godly character and a gift of leadership, then they should be released to use that gift for the church’s benefit in whatever role or function is appropriate – the gender of the person in this context is largely irrelevant.

Men and women are redemptively equal and all may function in any area of ministry and leadership according to the spiritual gifts Christ has given them. Both men and women should be “under authority” to Christ and his Word. We should work together for the establishment of the church of Jesus Christ and the fulfilment of the Great Commission (Mt.28:18-20).

~~~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beck, James R. and Blomberg, Craig L. (editors). Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.

Belleville, Linda L. Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books, 2000.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1985.

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. From Church to Synagogue: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cole, Graham. The Ordination of Women (unpublished article). Melbourne, Victoria: Ridley College, 2000.

Conner, Kevin J. The Ministry of Women. Melbourne, Australia: KJC Publications, 1984.

Fee, Gordon. 2 Timothy – New International Bible Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984.

Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all its Worth. London, England: Scripture Union, 1992.

Finkelde, John. Created for Partnership. Perth, WA: Finkeldie Ministries, 1996.

Giles, Kevin. Created Woman. Canberra, Australia: Acorn Press, 1985.

______ Patterns of Ministry Among the First Christians. North Blackburn, Victoria: Collins Dove, 1989.

______ ‘A Critique of the “Novel” Contemporary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Given in the Book, Women in the Church. Part I’, Evangelical Quarterly 72:2, 2000, 151-67.

______ ‘A Critique of the “Novel” Contemporary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Given in the Book, Women in the Church. Part II’, Evangelical Quarterly 72:3, 2000, 195-215.

______ Women in the Church: A Rejoinder to Andreas Kostenberger. Evangelical Quarterly 73:3, 2001, 225-245.

Grenz, Stanley J. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John R. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Post Modern Context. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill. Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997.

Jewett, Paul K. The Ordination of Women. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980

Kostenberger, A.J., Schreiner, T.R., Baldwin, H.S. (Editors). Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1995.

______ Women in the Church: A Response to Kevin Giles. Evangelical Quarterly 73:3, 2001, 205-224.

Lees, Shirley. The Role of Women – 8 Prominent Christians Debate Today’s Issues. Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, 1984.

Melton, J. Gordon. Women’s Ordination: Official Statements from Religious Bodies and Ecumenical Organisations. Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research Inc., 1991.

Piper, J. and Grudem, W. (Editors). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Wheaton: Crossway, 1991.

Power, Ward. The Ministry of Women in the Church: Which Way Forward? Adelaide, Australia: SPCKA, 1996.

Pryor, Dwight. The Ministry Of Women in the Early Church and Synagogue (audio teaching series). Dayton, Ohio: Center for Judaic-Christian Studies.

by Mark Conner, senior pastor, Waverley Christian Fellowship, Melbourne.

See also a similar article by Darren Cronshaw – http://jmm.org.au/articles/9020.htm