Today in major universities all over the world female professors
instruct their students in all subject matters, including many which involve
religion, spirituality and the Scriptures. And as most people know, they teach
their students all these subjects just as well as male professors. Yet on
Sunday mornings, in most Christian churches these same highly qualified
teachers are not allowed to lead a discussion of “the Lord’s Prayer.”
In the
20th-century, women such as Golda Meir of Israel, Indira Gandhi of India, and
Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom served as the Prime Ministers of their
nations. While doing so they proved themselves to be entirely capable of not
only running a large bureaucratic government, but also providing millions of
people with strong inspirational leadership. But in most of today’s Christian
churches women are not allowed to make any decisions pertaining to the way
their churches are run, or permitted to serve in any of their churches’
leadership positions.
The
Bible informs us that before God gave the nation of Israel its first king it
was governed by “judges.” It also tells us that at that time God raised up a
“prophetess” named “Deborah” to judge His people, and that under her direction
the land of Israel “had peace for forty years.” (Judges Chapters 4 and 5) Yet today, in
most Christian churches, women are not allowed to serve as church “elders”
(also known as “overseers” or “bishops”). Why? Because that position often
involves both teaching and making judgments on various matters. And supposedly
God does not now want women doing such things in their Christian churches.
Christian churches which do
not now allow women to serve in these positions often tell us that they do not
permit women to do so because the Scriptures tell us that God only allows men
to serve as Christian church leaders. In fact, some Christians who believe this
to be true also understand the Scriptures to say that God does not even allow
women to speak in Christian churches. Those who understand the Bible in this
way usually point to some of the apostle Paul’s writings to support their
beliefs. But since their understanding of some of Paul’s written words seems to
clearly conflict with other things he wrote, as well as with other parts of the
Scriptures, we have good reason to wonder if those who understand his words in
this way may actually misunderstand some of what Paul wrote.
I
believe they do. For my studies of Paul’s writings, which I will here present,
show that the words attributed to Paul which are most often criticized as being
"sexist" do not actually reflect what Paul himself taught about how
women should be treated in the Christian church. Instead, I believe that the
context of all of Paul's allegedly "male chauvinist" comments shows
that they were actually the words of false teachers which had been sent to Paul
for his critique, and which he repeated only for reference in his written
response.
The
words written by Paul, to which I here refer, are those recorded in
1 Corinthians 11:3-10, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, and in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Among other things,
the words in these verses very clearly say that women should not be allowed to
teach, or even to speak, in Christian churches.
Many Christians have a hard
time understanding how the apostle Paul could have ever written the words found
in these three passages of Scripture, for several reasons. First, because Paul
encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of
Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1) And
we know that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual
things with them (Luke 10:36-42; John
4:7-27). Second, because Paul was the same man who said that, among
those “who have been baptized into Christ … there is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
(Galatians
3:27-28). Third, because we know Paul did not object to his female
missionary companion, Priscilla, teaching men about Christ. (Acts
18:26) And finally, because we know Paul allowed women to act as
both “prophets” and “servants” (or “deaconesses”) in their churches. (Acts
21:9; Romans
16:1) And in his letter to the
Romans, Paul used the same Greek word, “diakonos” (Strong’s Greek word #
1249), to describe the position that Phoebe held in her church that he used to
describe the positions held by male “deacons” in their churches. (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 10, 12, 13)
But how could Paul have
approved of women serving as “prophets” and “servants” in their churches if he
did not allow them to teach or even speak in those churches, as 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12 would seem to indicate?
With this question in mind, I will here present strong evidence which shows
that the apostle Paul was, in these passages of Scripture, actually referencing
false teachings, which were then being promoted by false teachers in Christian
churches, for the purpose of correcting those false teachings and severely
rebuking those who were then promoting them.
I will now discuss these
three controversial passages of Scripture one at a time.
First, the evidence shows
that the words Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 contain a false teaching that was then being promoted by some in
Corinth which the Corinthian church leaders sent to Paul for his critique.
Paul's words in the preceding verse serve as an obvious tip-off that he was
about to directly quote and then comment on a false teaching that was then
circulating in the church. For in verse 2 of this same chapter Paul wrote to the Corinthians saying, "I
praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings
just as I passed them on to you.” The next words Paul wrote, those recorded in
verses 3-10, contain the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent to Paul
for his comments, and which he there referenced for the purpose of reminding
them of the teaching they sent to him for his critique.
That teaching was this:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or
prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays
or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though
her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her
hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or
shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since
he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man
did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought
to have a sign of authority on her head."
The
contents of the next several verses, 1 Corinthians 11:11-16, show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had
just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly repudiate the
misogynistic teachings being promoted in the words Paul recorded in verses
3-10. Thus they must be understood as the apostle Paul's own explanation of the
true Christian position on this issue, the position he was really then
promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however, woman is not
independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from
man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for
yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is
a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long
hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about
this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God."
After quoting those who
demanded that women wear head coverings, in addition to their natural head coverings,
their own hair, to show their submission to men, Paul expressed his
disagreement by writing: "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things
teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a
woman has long hair it is her glory?” Paul was here reminding his readers that
“nature” tells us if anyone needs to have their heads covered it is men. For as
most men know all too well, we naturally lose much of our hair as we age, and
many of us end up losing nearly all of it. For this reason artificial head
coverings are, in fact, more needed by men than they are by women. And here, in
his response to the false teachers who wanted women to cover their heads to
show their submission to men, the apostle Paul in his own inimitable way
clearly said so.
Paul
then facetiously reminded those who were demanding that women cover their heads
when praying in the presence of men that God had already responded to their
concerns. For unlike a lot of men, Paul pointed out that women already have
their heads covered. “For long hair is given to her as a covering." Paul
did not, however, here say that a woman’s naturally fuller, and thus typically
longer hair, should be seen by anyone as a sign of her submission to men.
Instead, he said a woman’s hair was intended by God to display “her glory.” So,
contrary to the false teachings he had just referenced, Paul was here saying
that women do not need to wear any additional head coverings when praying to
God in the presence of men.
Furthermore, Paul clearly
pointed out in verse 12 that men and women were equal in the faith. He did so
by writing, "For as woman was made from man [Eve being made by God from
Adam’s rib], so man is born of woman. And all things are from God." This
argument made by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' assertion he referred
to in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because
"man did not come from woman, but woman from man."
The now common “sexist”
understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which
Paul wrote. His use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases
is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood.
However, Paul’s words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom
he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously
taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had
asked Paul to comment on. However, when we now read Paul’s letters we do not
have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes
difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting the words of false
teachers he had been asked to critique and when he was actually presenting his
own true Christian teachings.
Sadly, because of such
difficulties in understanding the apostle Paul's letters many of the words he
wrote to refute false teachings later became widely used to promote them. And
in the process both the apostle Paul and the God of the Bible acquired very
much undeserved reputations for being "anti-woman."
I will now comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Though I normally use
the New International Version of the Bible, I will here use the 21st Century
King James Version because in the following verse, verse 36, the New International
Version is missing one very important element. (The Revised Standard Version
and several other translations may also be referenced here. For they contain
this same important element.) Here we read: "Let your women keep silence
in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn
anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church."
Here again, like in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, we can see that Paul
was quoting the words of false teachers which the Corinthians had sent to him
for his review. And we can see that he was doing so for the purpose of rebuking
those false teachers and correcting their heresies. We can do so by simply
reading the three following verses. For in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 Paul wrote: "What?
Did the Word of God come out from you? Or did it come unto you only? If any man
think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man
be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Paul
identifies false teachings with either a strong rebuke or by clearly pointing
out the error and correcting it, or by doing both. But he does so, as I
mentioned earlier, while using very few transitional words. Here his
transitional words are extremely scant. In fact, they consist of only a single
word. But for Paul it only took one word to identify a false teaching. That
word was one very strong word of rebuke. In this case, for those who missed it,
that word was, "What?" In the beginning of verse 36 the Greek word “e”
(Strong’s Greek word # 2228) is translated as "What?" in the King
James Version, in the American Standard Version, and in the Modern English
Version of the Bible. And it is translated as “What!” in the Revised Standard
Version and in other translations of the Bible. This small Greek word is defined
in Greek lexicons as "a primary particle of distinction between two
connected terms." Unfortunately, it is here missing from the New
International Version and from several other Bible translations.
By Paul's use of this Greek
word to begin his thoughts recorded in verse 36 he was expressing both shock and outrage at the blatant sexism
that some false teachers were then promoting as Christian doctrine. For those
who question if this was truly the sentiment that Paul meant to convey by the
first word he used in verse 36, the many words of rebuke which followed his "What?" or
“What!” show beyond all doubt that he was disgusted that such sexist teachings
were then being promoted in the Christian church. And he reminded the
Corinthians that, unlike the false teachers who were then demeaning Christian
women, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the
Lord." (Verse 37) One of the things to which he obviously here referred was his
teaching that within the body of Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
More importantly, the
content of this passage, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, clearly indicates that the sentiments expressed therein could not
have been those of the apostle Paul. For verse 34 says that women "are commanded to be under obedience as also
saith the law." But since God’s laws to Israel (also known as “the law of
Moses”) contained no such commands, the words Paul wrote saying that “the law”
required women to be obedient to men must have referred to the “oral law” of
the Pharisees (their traditional interpretations of the law of Moses which they
considered to be just as sacred and binding as the Mosaic law itself). But we
know that Paul was the apostle who continually preached Christian freedom and
often reminded Christians that God’s people are no longer “under law,” either
“the law of Moses” or the Pharisees’ “oral law.” (Romans 6:14; 1 Corinthians 10:23; 2 Corinthians 3:11, 13,
17; Galatians 2:4; 3:24-25; 5:1; Colossians 2:14) With these things in
mind, the idea that the apostle Paul would have appealed to the Pharisees’ oral
law to support his own teachings is absurd. So when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and elsewhere that
women should be treated differently than men within the Christian Church, he
must have been referencing the false teachings of some very legalistic Jewish
Christians that he had been asked to comment on. When Paul repeated the sexist
sentiments of those false teachers in his letters, he did so only for
reference. And their words, which he then critiqued, bore no resemblance to the
apostle Paul on this matter.
The
website greek-language.com informs us that, “The ancient Greeks did not have
any equivalent to our modern device of punctuation. Sentence punctuation was
invented several centuries after the time of Christ. The oldest copies of both
the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are written with no
punctuation. In addition, the ancient Greeks used no spaces between words or
paragraphs. Texts were a continuous string of letters, with an occasional blank
line inserted to mark the end of a major section, though even this was not
always done. They also had no equivalent to our lower case letters. Texts were
written in all capitals.” Despite all of this, I believe Paul may have still
formatted some of his written words in a way that made it clear to anyone who
read his original letters when exactly he was writing his own words and when he
was quoting the false teachings of others. For instance, he may have used
larger or smaller letters to clearly identify the words of the false teachers he
was quoting. Or he may have underlined or indented their words. By doing so,
though none of the content of Paul’s words would have changed, he may have been
able to clearly convey to the original readers of his epistles which were his
own words and which were the words of the false teachers he was referencing. I
believe Paul most likely employed some such form of formatting in his first
letter to the Corinthians and in his first letter to Timothy that clearly
differentiated his own words from those of the false teachers he was quoting
only to correct. Unfortunately, whatever means he may have then used to do so
would have almost certainly been lost the first time his letters were copied.
I also find it very
relevant to this discussion that Paul rhetorically asked those false teachers
in 1 Corinthians 14:36 if “the Word of God”
came “out from” them. Why? Because I believe “the Word of God” Paul then
referred to was Jesus Christ Himself. For “the Word of God” is one of the
titles the Bible bestows upon Jesus Christ elsewhere in the Scriptures. And it
does so using the identical Greek words, in the same order, that Paul used them
in 1 Corinthians 14:36. (See Revelation 19:13.) For the Greek word, “exerchomai”
(Strong’s Greek word # 1831), that has been translated in this verse as “come
out from,” is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to someone’s
parentage or ancestry. For instance, Hebrews 7:5 informs us, while using this same Greek word, that the Jewish
people “come out of the loins of Abraham.” With these things in mind, we can
understand that in 1 Corinthians 14:36 Paul rebuked false teachers by, in effect, sarcastically asking
them, “Did the Word of God, Jesus Christ, come out of the body of a man or did He
come out of the body of a woman?” Of course they knew that Jesus was born of a
woman named Mary. So by asking those false teachers this rhetorical question
Paul was reminding them just how much intelligence and holiness women often do
possess.
Paul’s
following words, which are most often translated as “or did it come unto you
only?” may have been better rendered by Bible translators without adding the
words “did it” to this verse. For those words do not appear in the Greek text.
They have been added by translators who apparently understood that Paul was
here referring to the Gospel message as “the Word of God,” rather than to the
person of Jesus Christ. This part of verse 36 may have been better translated as: “or [did He] come to you
only?” Such a translation would allow us to more easily see that Paul was here disingenuously asking those false
teachers yet another question: Did they think “the Word of God,” Jesus Christ,
came only to men and not also to women? I understand that in 1 Corinthians 14:36 the apostle Paul was
severely chastising those who were then promoting sexism within Christ’s
Church. I believe he did so by, in effect, telling them, “What you are saying
is rubbish! The Word of God, Jesus Christ, did not come out of the body of a
man. He was ‘born of a woman.’ And He did not come only to men. He also came to
women, who were in fact the first people He chose to visit after His resurrection.”
(Galatians 4:4; Luke 24:1-10)
The evidence also indicates
that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, like 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 and 14:34-35, contain words that
were written by Paul quoting false teachers. For in the last verse of 1
Timothy chapter 1, Paul told Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he said he
had "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Thus, we
have reason to believe that in the early part of 1 Timothy’s second chapter
Paul was refuting some of the teachings of these two men. For in verse 7 Paul forcefully pointed
out that, "I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and am a teacher of
the true faith to the Gentiles." These words of Paul indicate that he was
there contrasting his position as a teacher of truth with the false teachers he
had just been discussing and whom he was about to quote.
With this in mind, we can
see Paul’s words recorded in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as a false teaching he was quoting for the purpose of exposing it as
such. There Paul wrote, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in
prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with
decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive
clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
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. For Adam was
formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who
was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing
- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." Part of
what helps us see this is that in his very next words, those recorded in 1 Timothy 3:1, in referring to what he
would next write, Paul said, "Here is the trustworthy saying." With
these words Paul clearly indicated, as he did twice more in this same letter to
Timothy,
(1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9) that he had just been
referring to either untrustworthy people or untrustworthy ways of thinking.
As I mentioned here earlier,
Paul's scant use of transitional phrases, clearly distinguishing his own
teachings from the false teachings he sometimes referenced, is largely to blame
for the problems we now have in understanding some of Paul’s allegedly “sexist”
words. And Paul's use of such transitional phrases is again quite scant before
Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Fortunately, however, we here have an additional reason to
understand that Paul must have here been quoting the words of false teachers.
For we know Paul could not have here been presenting his own beliefs about
women, because he had already shown in 1 Corinthians 11:12 that the argument, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," in
no way proves that man is superior to woman. For, as Paul there pointed out,
"As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." So, why
would Paul have tried to convince Timothy that man is superior to woman by
using an argument that he himself had previously shown to be badly flawed? (1
Timothy was written after 1 Corinthians.) The evidence shows that he would not
and that he did not. So we must conclude that Paul’s written words in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 contain the false
teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and that in this passage of Scripture he
was quoting their teachings for the purpose of informing Timothy that he
considered them to be neither "true" nor "trustworthy."
Something which also helps
us to identify the teachings recorded in
1 Timothy 2:8-15 as being those of false
teachers is the fact that they are full of regulations and restrictions typical
of legalistic Jewish-Christian sects that were already beginning to appear in
the first-century. It seems these sects promoted a form of prayer, during which
only the “men” raised their hands. It also appears that they promoted a dress
code for women that prohibited expensive jewelry, fancy clothing and elaborate
hairstyles. These prohibitions left more money for the men to spend on
themselves and give to their leaders, all on the pretense that God was being
served by the way they treated women.
As
I read the words of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, "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," I recalled the movie "Yentyl" with Barbra Streisand.
Anyone who has seen this film can appreciate the effect such teachings once
had, and often still have on women, and why Jesus Christ’s apostle Paul would
have condemned those who promoted such sexism.
Finally, I will here note
that the Greek word “ego” (Strong’s word # 1473) which appears numerous
times in the New Testament, and is there translated into English as the
personal pronoun “I” or “me,” does not appear in the Greek text of any of the
three passages of Scripture we have here just considered.
(1 Corinthians 11:3-10, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15) So whenever we see the
personal pronoun “I” in the English translation of these passages of Scripture,
apparently originally written by the apostle Paul in Greek, we need to remember
that it did not appear in what Paul originally wrote in these passages, and was
added to his words by Bible translators in order to form a complete English
sentence. However, as Strong’s Greek Dictionary Of The New Testament tells us
regarding the Greek word “ego,” this “primary pronoun of the first
person” was not used nearly as frequently by the writers of the Greek
Scriptures as we now use the word “I.” Instead, it was “only expressed when”
someone wanted to be “emphatic” about his identity. So since Paul failed to use
the Greek personal pronoun “ego” (translated as “I” in English) to
emphatically identify himself as the original author of all the words contained
in these three passages, he left open the possibility that these words, and the
sentiments they expressed, were not his own.
These are the passages in
the New Testament which are most often criticized for allegedly containing
"sexist" Christian teachings. However, there are two other passages
of Scripture that were written by the apostle Paul that are also sometimes
called “sexist.” They are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Timothy 5:9-14.
In Titus 2:3-5, Paul wrote:
"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not
to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they
can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be
self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to
their husbands, so that no one will malign the Word of God." These do not
appear to me to be sexist remarks. Though I can see that there here exists an
opportunity to take offense, especially if someone is looking for such an
opportunity.
In 1 Timothy 5:9-14, Paul wrote: "No
widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been
faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing
up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people,
helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As
for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual
desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they
bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.
Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to
house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies,
saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have
children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for
slander." The early Christian church had the custom of financially
supporting widows. Here Paul was advising Timothy to no longer put young women
who had lost their husbands on the list of widows who would be supported by the
church. For Paul felt that supporting young widows who were fully capable of
supporting themselves gave them too much time on their hands, time which often
ended up being used in nonproductive ways. Paul also felt that young widows were
capable of finding new husbands who would help support them, and by so doing
they would no longer pose a financial burden to their fellow Christians. These
words of Paul cannot be considered sexist because he probably would have also
said the same things about young widowers, if they were being supported by
their churches. But they were not, so he did not.
In these two letters that
Paul wrote to Titus and Timothy he encouraged Christian women to be good wives
and mothers and instructed them to willingly submit to their husbands at home.
By doing so Paul hoped that Christian wives might help bring their unbelieving
husbands to Christ and be good examples of Christian humility to all. However,
women were never told by Paul that they must submit themselves to men within
the Church. Wives willingly submitting themselves to their husbands within
their homes and women being required to submit themselves to all the men in
their church are two very different things. We should remember that Christian
slaves were also encouraged by both Paul and Peter to continue to willingly
submit themselves to their masters. (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Peter 2:18) However, this did not mean that Paul and Peter considered slave
masters to be superior to their slaves in any way. Neither does it indicate
that Christian slaves were not allowed to hold leadership or teaching positions
in early Christian congregations. For within the Christian church Paul said
there was to be "neither slave nor free." (Galatians 3:28)
Paul's
intent in instructing Christian wives to continue submitting themselves to
their husbands and Christian slaves to continue submitting themselves to their
masters was to cause both Christians and Christianity to become well-spoken of
among the nations. Paul asked Christian wives and Christian slaves to willingly
surrender outside of the church what they were given inside of the church, full
equality with their fellow male believers and full equality with their masters.
He asked them to do so in order to help spread the Good News of Jesus Christ,
who, as Paul and others reminded them, also willingly suffered unjustly for
them. (1
Peter 2:18-21)
The Scriptures reveal that
in the early church men usually took the lead in most matters, as they still
tend to do today. And Paul's letters were written with that fact of life in
mind. But this does not mean that women were then, or should be today, excluded
from being appointed as elders and teachers in their churches.
Some also now use Paul's
words in 1
Timothy 3:2, where he said that "an elder must be ... a husband of but
one wife," to support their teaching that Paul did not permit women to
serve as church "elders." However, it is obvious from their context
that these words of Paul did not exclude women from serving as
"elders." For we see that in verse 12 Paul wrote that a “deacon” also “must be the husband of but one
wife.” But as I showed earlier in the case of Phoebe, Paul allowed women to
serve in this same position. So Paul's words in 1 Timothy 3:2 must have been intended
by him to be understood only in a very general way. We can also see this by the
fact that even though Paul wrote that, "an elder must be ... the husband
of one wife," few who use this verse to prove that an "elder"
must be a man also say that an "elder" must be married, or that he
cannot be a widower. Also to be considered is the fact that Paul said that an
elder must have "children who obey him." (Verse 4) So according to the
"an elder must be a man because Paul said they must be husbands"
logic, all elders must also have children, but not just any children, children
who still live in their parents’ home. For only such children are required to
"obey" their parents.
But it is not reasonable to
believe that in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 Paul was saying that all elders had to be married men with young
children. For to believe this we would also have to believe that Paul required
that elders give up their positions in their churches whenever their wives died
and whenever their children grew up and moved out on their own. For those
elders would then no longer be "husbands of one wife" and they would
then no longer have "children who obey them."
These things show that the
only reasonable way to read 1 Timothy 3:2 is to understand that in this verse Paul was simply indicating
that most of the time elders were going to be men because at the time Paul
wrote his letter to Timothy few women had enough education to be "able to
teach," which is what elders largely did. Also in the first-century,
before such things as birth control, disposable diapers, clothes washers and
dryers, dishwashers and frozen dinners, the vast majority of women were far too
busy at home to be able to take on the responsibilities of teaching and
shepherding a Christian church. So Paul knew that few women would then have the
time to serve their churches as "elders." However, as I have here
shown, Paul's words in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 do not disqualify women from doing so.
It
should be here noted that even though most Christian churches do not now permit
women to officially serve as “elders” many churches have long allowed women to
serve as “deacons,” either officially or unofficially. For the English word
“deacon” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word “diakonos” which means
“servant.” And women have long been given various “servant” positions in their
churches. The servant positions that women now often fill in Christian churches
include teaching children’s “Sunday school” classes and sometimes even teaching
adults in “limited” ways. However, even though such women are now often judged
by their churches’ leaders as being “able to teach,” very few Christian
churches will now appoint them as “elders.” But this makes very little sense.
For the only difference between the qualities Paul said someone needed to
become a “deacon“ (or “servant”) and those he said were needed to be appointed
as an “elder” was being “able to teach.” (Compare the qualifications of
“elders” to those of “deacons” in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and 8-13.) So, since many Christian women are now often appointed to serve
in their churches as “teachers,” they are now effectively being appointed as
“elders,” without the title. For again, the only biblical difference between a
“deacon” (or “servant”) and an “elder” is that “elders” need to be “able to
teach.”
With
all these things in mind, we have no reason to believe that women were
prohibited by Paul from serving as elders in early Christian churches. The fact
of the matter is, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we
know that women did serve as teachers, and thus as “elders,” in first-century
Christian churches. For Jesus Christ Himself told us they did. He did so when He
instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira and rebuke them
for tolerating the false teachings of a woman named "Jezebel." Though
Jesus said He was displeased with what that woman was then teaching, He did not
say that He was unhappy with the fact that a woman was teaching. That the
church in Thyatira had allowed a woman to hold a teaching position for what was
apparently a long time clearly shows that women were allowed to teach in first-century
Christian churches. (Revelation 2:18-25)
Some may now ask, “If this
understanding of Paul's words concerning women is correct, why do the writings
of many of the early ‘Church Fathers’ indicate that they treated women as
second class citizens in the church?” The answer to this question is that even
during Paul's lifetime false teachers were busy trying to corrupt what he
taught concerning full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. And by
the time the early "Church Fathers" wrote on this subject matter the
thinking of the false teachers who had been so busy promoting sexism in Paul's
day had already taken over most Christian churches.
With
all these things in mind, it is simply neither fair nor accurate for anyone to
refer to the apostle Paul as a "sexist." For the facts show that the
man God used to write much of the New Testament did not, as is often alleged,
promote sexism. Rather, the apostle Paul was actually a very strong promoter
and defender of full equality of the sexes within the Christian church.
