|
 
Series - Lessons on Christian Women
Revised May 23, 2005
Baptist Women in Ministry
c/o The McAfee School of Theology
3001 Mercer University Drive
Atlanta, GA 30341
(678) 547-6475
Baptist Women in Ministry (http://www.bwim.info/index.php/welcome)-see Resources
Send e-mail to Baptist Women in Ministry (bwim@hotmail.com)
Authors
Dr. James A. and Beverly Cain Brooks
He-PhD Princeton Theological Seminary, D.Phil Oxford University
She-MDiv, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX
He-Former professor of New Testament and Greek,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Wort, TX
She-Former International Student Director,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX
He-Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, Bethel Theological Seminary
(Baptist General Conference), St. Paul, MN
She-Former Assistant Director of Field Education,
Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN
She-Ordained a deacon in Western Hills Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX,
Elder in Calvary Baptist Church, Rosevilla, MN.
Send e-mail to:
Dr. James A. Brooks (JAB1908@aol.com)
I. The Use of the Word Ordination
II. Laying on of Hands
III. The Question of Women Speaking in Church
IV. The Question of Permanency
V. Examples of Women in Ministry
It is doubtful that the noun 'ordination' or the verb 'to ordain' are used in the New Testament with reference to setting apart for the Christian ministry. The KJV uses the verb in Mark 3:14, John 15:16, Acts 1:22, 14:23, l Tim 2:7, and Titus 1:5; but most recent translations even including the NKJV employ "appointed" in most of these passages. In each instance the reference is to selection or choice rather than a ceremony. The NRSV does have "Do not ordain anyone hastily" in 1 Tim 5:22, but this is an interpretation and not a translation because, as indicated in
the margin, the Greek text reads "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily." Certainly there is no command to ordain anyone or any instructions for doing so.
The only way to find ordination in the New Testament is to identify it with the laying on of hands. It must be recognized, however, that hands were laid on for various purposes: blessing (Matt 19:13, 15; Mark 10:16), healing (Matt 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 9:12, 17; 28:8), and bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8: 17-19; 19:6).
The following passages could refer to what today is called ordination. Acts 6:6 unquestionably refers to setting apart for ministry, but whether it refers to the first deacons or to a special group who, like the apostles, had no successors, is much disputed. The word 'deacon' (diakonos) is not used in the passage, but the cognate verb (diakoneo = to serve, to minister) and the cognate noun (diakonia = service, ministry) are in vv. 1 and 4 respectively. The Seven performed the tasks of the later deacons. Whether or not these were the first deacons, it appears that they were "ordained" for a particular task, not to a lifetime of ministry. Likewise in Acts 13:3 the laying of hands upon Saul and Barnabas was for a particular mission and not for a lifetime of ministry. Both had already been ministering for several years.
The other laying-on-of-hands passages are not so clear. 1 Tim 4:14 is interpreted by most to refer to ordination to ministry, although a few locate it at Timothy's baptism. 1 Tim 5:22 could refer to the laying on of hands at baptism, or to the restoration of fellowship to penitent backsliders, or to ordination to ministry. The context is that of the discipline of elders. It is unlikely, however, that Paul was envisioning a service at which a wayward elder was restored, and therefore it is probable that he is advising Timothy to be judicious in ordaining elders in order to
avoid discipline problems later. 2 Tim 1:6 also probably refers to ordination
rather than baptism because it is virtually certain that Timothy had already
been baptized before Paul returned to Lystra on his second missionary journey
and added him to his team. Hebrews 6:2 is most obscure and may refer to a
Jewish rather than Christian rite.
This section may be summarized by saying that the New Testament does not explicitly mention ordination but that it probably alludes to it in two certain and three probable references to laying on of hands. The two passages from Acts almost certainly refer to commissioning to a particular ministry and not a life of ministry; those in the letters to Timothy say nothing about duration. Therefore the issue is not the ordination of women. Inasmuch as the New Testament does not direct the ordination of anyone, it does not prohibit the ordination of anyone.
The real issue is whether women may speak in the public assembly or worship service. Again the evidence is not clear as contemporary Christians would like it to be. There is one passage which assumes that they may do so and that they will do so. It is 1 Cor 11:5. If Paul had objected to women praying in public and prophesying/preaching[1] in public, he certainly would not have concerned himself with whether or not their heads were covered! There are two other passages in the New Testament that suggest approval of women prophets. Luke 2:36 describes Anna as a Jewish prophetess. Of course approval of a Jewish prophetess does not necessarily imply approval of Christian prophetesses, but the reference is still significant because women play a much smaller role in Judaism than in the early church. Then Acts 21:9 indicates that Philip, one of the Seven of Acts 6, had four virgin daughters who were presumably Christian prophetesses. It seems beyond dispute therefore that responsible Christian leaders such as Paul and Philip approved of women speaking under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit
as prophetesses. The issue then becomes whether women may also preach when not functioning as prophetesses. The logical principle of arguing from the greater
to the lesser strongly suggests that they may.
There are two other passages, however, which seem to forbid women from preaching and teaching in public. They are 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. Some have argued that the former is a later, non-Pauline interpolation by a "sexist" scribe and therefore is not a legitimate part of the Bible. It is true that a few ancient manuscripts place verses 34-35 after verse 40, but none omits the passage. It should be accepted as authentic. Then it must be harmonized with 1 Cor. 11:5. It is inconceivable that Paul would have contradicted himself in the same writing. One can only conclude that in some situations Paul had no objections to women preaching in public but in others he did, or that in theory he had no objections but in practice he felt some limitations were necessary. Perhaps he distinguished between preaching under inspiration and speaking without such inspiration.
Why might limitations have been necessary at Corinth? It may be that Paul did not want Christian women to be associated in the popular mind with the sacred prostitutes who were prominent in the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth. In other situations where there could be no such association, he may not have had any reservations. It is also quite possible that 1 Cor 14:33-35 does not refer to the preaching of the gospel but to women interrupting and disturbing the worship service by asking their husbands questions. Note especially verse 35.
Similar comments may be made about 1 Tim 2:11-15. There may well have been something in the situation of the church at Ephesus (cf. 1:3) that necessitated limitations upon the role of women in teaching. There is not enough available information to know with certainty what it was, but there are several possibilities. It could be that extreme pressure was applied by Jews because of the exclusion of women from any public role in their synagogues. If the Ephesian church was to continue to win Jews, women could not be involved in teaching. Another possibility is that Paul did not want the church to be associated with emerging gnosticism where women played a large role. The Pastoral Epistles were written in part to oppose this heresy. Another possibility also involving gnosticism is that women had proven more vulnerable to the heresy than men (cf. 2 Tim 3:6). The probable reason is that they had little education and little experience outside the home. Perhaps the most likely reason is that women priestesses played a large part in the worship of the fertility goddess Artemis at Ephesus, and Paul did not want anyone to think that Christian women played a similar, immoral role in the church. (Acts 19 indicates that Ephesus was famous for the temple of Artemis. It was one of the "seven wonders" of the ancient world.) Note Paul's concern for the reputation of Christianity in Titus 2:5. None of the above which may have been factors at Ephesus in the first century are considerations in modern western society, and therefore the prohibition which applied to Ephesus may no longer be in force.
There are also two similar passages which say nothing about speaking but which some cite as forbidding women to have positions of leadership. 1 Tim 3:2 and 12 state that a bishop or overseer and a deacon must be the husband of one wife. Of course no women can be that. All these verses do, however, is reflect the fact that most leaders in the early church were men -- for reasons already given. Of course if the verses can be used to disqualify women from the ministry, they must also disqualify single or widowed men!
One needs to realize that their are many things in the Bible which were never intended to be permanent -- things which were socially and temporally conditioned. One has already been mentioned: covering the head and/or veiling the face of women. 1 Tim 2:9 forbids the braiding of hair and wearing of jewelry and expensive clothes, but few who demand the silence of women today believe that this verse should be enforced. 1 Tim 5:3-16 gives directions for an order of widows, but nobody claims that modern churches must have such a group. 1 Tim 6:1-2 commands Christian slaves to be obedient to their masters, but nobody today would cite this passage to justify slavery.
Of course the fact that some things were never intended to be permanent does not prove that the limitations upon women in ministry are not permanent. Contemporary Christians must weigh many factors in attempting to decide whether the commands of silence that applied to first-century Corinth and Ephesus still apply today. One is certainly Gal 3:28. Everyone agrees that it means that salvation is available on equal terms to Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free persons, and males and females. Does it go further? Certainly it was God's intention that social and role distinctions between Jew and Gentiles and between slaves and free persons should fade away. Why should not modern Christians conclude that it was also God's intention that such distinctions between males and females should have no place in church and society? How can there be no distinction, how can there be equality, how can there be oneness in Christ as long as women are kept out of the preaching and teaching ministry?
Another consideration in attempting to decide the absoluteness and permanency of the "silence" passages is the role women actually played in the apostolic churches -- in addition to prophesying which has already been treated. Did they have any kind of official position, whether that of deacon or pastor? Were they engaged in what today would be called the ministry? Did they lead and have authority?
In Rom 16:1 Paul commends Phoebe, a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea near Corinth. The English word 'deacon' is simply a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos. In the New Testament it is used both in a technical sense to refer to the office of deacon and in a non technical sense to refer to any servant or minister. All lexicons agree that the word can be either masculine or feminine. One cannot be certain of the sense in Rom 16:1 -- thus the different English translations -- but inasmuch as Phoebe is described as a diakonos of a particular church rather than of Christ, it seems likely that she had an official position in that church, that she was a deacon in the technical sense. In verse 2 she is said to be a prostatis of many. The word, which appears only here in the New Testament, is usually translated 'helper', but it may mean more than that. The cognate verb proistémi means similarly 'to be concerned about, to care for, to give aid', but it also often means 'to be the head of, to rule, to direct'. Paul may have chosen prostatis in order to indicate that Phoebe had a church position that involved leadership.
1 Tim 3:11 may provide further evidence that women served as deacons in the early church. Verses 8-13 give the qualifications of deacons. Verse 11 gives the qualifications of gunaikes. The Greek word can mean either 'woman' or 'wife'. Obviously the reference is not to women or wives in general. It is either to women who serve as deacons or to the wives of the deacons. The main argument in favor of wives is that the discussion of the qualifications of deacons continues in verses 12-13. Against this view, however, is the absence of the pronoun 'their' and the absence of any reference to the qualifications of the wives of the bishops or overseers. In favor of the deaconess view is the use of the adverb 'likewise' in verses 8 and 11. Just as the deacons (one group) must have qualifications similar to those of the bishops (another group), so the deaconesses (another group) must have qualifications similar to the deacons. For some reason that is not at all clear,
Paul wanted to distinguish between deacons and deaconesses. For this reason he could not very well use the word diakonos in referring to the latter
because, as was mentioned above, it can be either masculine or feminine.
Therefore he used the word 'women', which in the present context evidently
means 'women deacons' or 'deaconesses.'
In Rom. 16:3 Paul describes Prisca and Aquila as his follow workers in Christ. It would appear that Prisca performed the same ministry as Aquila and that the two of them performed the same ministry as Paul. As for women teaching men, Acts 18:26 indicates that both Priscilla (the Prisca of the Epistles) and Aquila taught Apollos. It is not without significance that in four of the six passages where the couple is mentioned, Priscilla/Prisca is mentioned first. The implication is that she was the more prominent of the two.
In Rom 16:6 a certain Mary is described as one who had worked hard for the Roman church. In verse 12 three other women --Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis -- are described in the same way. It is not likely that the apostle was talking about sewing, scrubbing floors, or preparing meals. In 1 Tim 5:17 he commends elders who work hard in preaching and teaching. Inasmuch as he uses the same word in all three passages, is it unreasonable to assume that the four women in Rome also worked hard in formal ministry which perhaps involved preaching and teaching? There is something else in 1 Tim 5:17. Paul also commends elders who rule well. He uses the verb proistémi which was mentioned above because it sheds light on the prostatis of Phoebe.
In Philippians 4:3 Paul wrote that Euodia and Syntyche had worked with him and with Clement and his other fellow workers for the gospel. In 2 Cor 8:23 Titus is described as a fellow worker. There seems to be no basic difference in the ministries of these female and male assistants or in those of Paul and his assistants.
I Tim 5:3-16 gives directions for making an official list of widows. Although the text is not clear about the matter, most think that they constituted an official order who in return for support by the church performed various services. There is no indication, however, that they preached or taught or held places of leadership in the church. Therefore the passage is not relevant to the subject of this article. Some think that the same group is referred to in Acts 6:1 and 9:39, but this is most doubtful. The same is true of the widows in 1 Cor 7:8.
To be objective mention must also be made of the "Jezebel" of Rev 2:20 who was a false prophetess and taught the church at Thyatira to indulge in immorality and idolatry. It need only be said that she is condemned not because she was a woman but because she was a false teacher.
Certainly there are far more references in the New Testament to men in ministry than to women in ministry, but considering the cultural situation this is not surprising. The surprising thing is that there are any references to women ministers. The fact that there are a moderate number indicates that from the beginning Christianity recognized the legitimate place of women in ministry. From the beginning the Christian ideal was equality of men and women in ministry. That ideal could not be realized at the time, and it still has not been realized. Nevertheless progress has been made, and the time has now come for the church to go all the way toward the realization of the ideal.
[1] The primary task of Christian prophets was to proclaim a message directly inspired by God and his Spirit. These messages were inspired in a way no modern sermon is. They were inspired in much the same way the Bible is. Until the books of the New Testament were written, collected, made available to churches, and recognized as Scripture, there was a need for such authoritative messages. Once the New Testament emerged, Christian prophecy declined. The important thing to note for the present purpose, however, is that Paul assumed that women could, should, and would prophesy/preach in public.
|