The Catholic church reminded us on Thursday that the ordination of women is a “most serious crime” (ignore most of the media reports, the reporters don’t know what they are talking about). Some Presbyterians, such as Tim Bayly on Monday, have said such things as:

[It] came to me that churches that hide the Biblical doctrine of sexuality by putting women forward as officers over men ... [are]  placing stumbling blocks before women, denying them the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, defended John MacArthur on Wednesday against an appeal to Galatians 3:28 for the ordination of female pastors:

But this is the kind of sloppy and agenda-driven exegesis that reveals the desperation of those who would reject the New Testament’s limitation of the office of pastor to men. In Galatians 3:28 Paul is clearly speaking of salvation — not of service in the church. Paul is declaring to believers the great good news that “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” [verse 26]. He concludes by affirming, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” [verse 29].

That seems like a consensus of the learned. We have well-known Protestant seminary presidents (John MacArthur is president of Master’s College and Seminary) in agreement with the Catholic church.

I’ve heard this topic argued about in pentecostal churches and among conservative homeschoolers. The dissenters seem to be largely liberal and argue like the woman Al Mohler was attempting to correct:

Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E.  and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?

Mohler was right. That’s a horrible argument. Unfortunately I have read the extreme side of his view, from other authors who have taken an extreme view, and it has made me wonder exactly what the Bible does say. In that quest, I have now read several more works and discussed this topic with a number of people. I think some of them have gotten a little frustrated at my questions.

One famous passage in this debate is found in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy. I wrote a small muse about it last year and a few people contacted me with their concern that I was going off into la-la land. This post may confirm that for some of you. I Timothy 2:11-15:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The argument goes that the woman is not to teach a man because her purpose in the world is functionally subordinate to that of man. This is because of the Creation Order where woman was created second, and Paul continues in the next chapter to instruction Timothy to appoint male bishops and deacons.

As one friend (who still maintains that women should not teach men) has pointed out, the “Creation Order” idea is bunk. God made the animals before Adam. There must be another reason Paul brought up the issue that man was made first.

The command for women to be silent is interesting. Paul says in another epistle that women should keep quiet in church. I Corinthians 14:34:

the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

This adds something new. Paul is not attributing this command to his own authority but is specifying a reason. Did you notice that capital “L” on “Law”? At least the KJV, NASB, ESV and NIV have it. Which law is Paul referring to?

Out of the 20+ commentaries that I have access to, more than half of them say one or both of “Genesis 3:16” and “all of Moses’ law, taken as a whole.” To make Genesis 3:16 say this is a stretch, and it seems odd that nobody can pinpoint an exact reference for this “law.” A few modern commentators are willing to admit that nobody can say which OT passage Paul was referring to.

Suppose for a moment that Paul wrote this command because Roman law prohibited women from speaking in assemblies. Does that sound obscure and far-fetched? Even though John Calvin still believed that women should not teach in churches, take a look at a part of his thoughts on the passage:

And unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly. Nay more, while originally they had permission given to them at Rome to plead before a court, the effrontery of Caia Afrania led to their being interdicted, even from this. Paul’s reasoning, however, is simple — that authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection.

I don’t believe Caia Afrania was entirely responsible for women lacking a voice in assemblies, but it is well-known that this “right” was removed from Roman women in at least some situations.

The Catholic church stands on its tradition that Jesus appointed male apostles and there have never been female pastors in the historic church. Tradition stands against it.

In I Timothy 3, as mentioned above, Paul gives the requirements for bishops and deacons. Those requirements aren’t as distinct as some people would have you believe. For instance, Paul says that the Bishop must be the husband of one wife. He does not say what the character of the Bishop’s wife must be. The deacon’s wife is scrutinized, however.

Does this mean that if I marry poorly, I can only be a bishop instead of a deacon?

It seems that these two lists are very similar, and I want to write a fuller explanation soon. The word that Paul uses for “deacon” is very interesting. Most of its occurances are translated as “servant,” including Romans 16:1:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,

Of all the translations that I have checked (nearly a score), only one (The Amplified) has dared to translate the word as something other than “servant” because it describes a woman.

The order that I see here is:

1. Probable reference to Roman Law prohibiting women from speaking publicly
2. Paul commended a female deacon
3. Similar requirements exist between a deacon and a bishop

I think there is at least a good reason to question the “male headship” order.

Earlier, I had said that there was probably another reason Paul mentioned the creation of men before women. There were several religions in Paul’s day which taught a virgin birth in a chicken-and-the-egg style argument. Woman had to come before child. (Does that sound like the modern Catholic church teaching? hmm.) I think Paul’s explanation to Timothy was a reminder of how to address converted Zoroastrians or people with similar backgrounds.

Another line of argument for the subordination of women is that they are allowed to teach younger women and children (ie. “children obey your parents”), just not men. Paul instructed Titus to have the older women teach the younger how to love their husbands and children. Paul then told Titus to instruct the young men. Did you notice the dichotomy in who Titus was not told to teach?

There are some things women do better at teaching each other, and there are some things men do better at teaching each other. That does not mean that one sex cannot teach the other.

This post is not an attempt to explain everything, but it is enough that you can hopefully read these passages with a fresh pair of eyes. Nowhere am I arguing that women are not to submit to their husbands. Neither am I saying husbands do not have to lay down their lives daily for their wives.

Let the flame wars begin.