APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
HERMENEUTICS AND THEOLOGY
The differences between biblical interpreters on the key texts about women and the church are so great that it seems impossible at present to arrive at a full consensus. One crucial area of disagreement is on the foundational matter of hermeneutics, that aspect of biblical study that deals with principles of interpretation. Another area, theology, includes significant issues that, when probed, reveal underlying presuppositions that often affect exegesis and the resultant positions on women and the church. The following survey may help to clarify such matters and bring about a better mutual understanding and, perhaps, a greater measure of agreement as well.
Hermeneutics
Much could be said about recent developments in hermeneutics. These have included such topics as the meaning of language and the impingement of the “horizon” of the interpreter on the meaning of the text. But there are two distinct developments with respect to scriptural passages that refer to women, and they deserve special mention here. First, new attention has been given to the hermeneutics of these passages by Evangelicals. Second, feminists have developed an entirely new approach called “feminist hermeneutics.”
Evangelical Scholarship
Evangelical writers on the subject of women, especially those who might be called “traditionalists,” have long been accused of merely using “proof texts” to support their position. While this has not been true of all, there certainly has been need for a more careful use of hermeneutical principles. One attempt, that of Paul K. Jewett, to bring a new approach to the writings of Paul drew considerable criticism: he saw an intrusion of Paul’s rabbinic background into his comments on women. Others, however, also sought to take background factors into consideration. A significant Evangelical contribution regarding texts on women appeared in 1977 when Grant Osborne published an article entitled, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church.”1 Osborne was concerned about serious instances of the neglect of sound interpretive principles in some treatments of the key texts about women. He urged recognition of the distinction between what is truly an expression of principle and what is merely cultural in the biblical text.
The matter of culture was also taken up, along with a number of other topics, in an essay by Robert K. Johnston, “The Role of Women in the Church and Home: An Evangelical Testcase in Hermeneutics.”2 Johnston provides a series of hermeneutical principles that should prevent the twisting of Scripture in order to extract support for one’s position.
Not all Evangelicals agreed that the role of culture is a necessary factor in determining the meaning and application of a text. Susan T. Foh referred to “the hermeneutical principle of deculturalization” as “the means by which passages that make distinctions between men and women can be removed.”3 She continued with the objection that it is difficult to determine “what parts of the Bible are culturally conditioned and therefore nonauthoritative.” The word “therefore” is significant in that sentence; whatever is culturally conditioned simply cannot, in Foh’s opinion, be authoritative. In such an approach, she thinks, “any absolute standard is impossible.” Further, “if Paul’s teaching about women in the church is cultural, maybe his teaching on justification or his faith in God is, too.”4
The issue here is whether the role of women is a purely theological matter, like faith and justification, or whether in the ancient world the way women appeared and what they did in public had a social significance that doctrines per se did not. But if it was improper in the eyes of some moralists of the first century (such as Plutarch) for a woman to speak publicly, the biblical teachings about women are not disembodied truths suspended, as it were, above the real world in some timeless abstract proposition. There is a qualitative distinction between the doctrines of faith and justification and the social role of women. What many fear, and this is probably part of Foh’s concern, is that readers of the Bible may fail to make the proper cultural transition and application today.
Actually, the role of culture and, to expand the issue, both the role of social history and the employment of contemporary social theory are major subjects of discussion among scholars today. Much information is being gathered from ancient literature and archaeology, such as inscriptions, artwork, the remains of synagogues, and the like. These provide insights into social strata, methods of itinerant preachers, roles of women in non-Christian religions, family structure, concepts of authority, and other matters pertaining to women in the church. Some applications of contemporary social and anthropological theory have been questionable, but solid progress is being made in the field of social history.
Many Evangelicals today would contend that it is not a matter of whether one uses cultural or social considerations in the interpretation and application of the passages on women, but how this is best done. For the Evangelical student of Scripture the key question is how these can be used to determine, rather than erode, that which is transcultural and theologically binding.
It is important to recognize that the use of cultural factors in interpretation does not assume that the biblical message is culturally relative, but rather that it is culturally relevant, both in its own times and today. Even basic word study requires the consideration of cultural factors in order for one to know what common understanding (based on common usage and inner context) the biblical writers could assume between themselves and their readers. Also it may help if recognition is given to the difference between Scripture being modified by culture and Scripture addressing culture.
If the term cultural is threatening to some, at least an attempt should be made to determine from the context of a passage what circumstances evoked it. What, for example, were the circumstances under which women were to wear head coverings at Corinth? Under what circumstances did Paul refuse to allow women to teach at Ephesus? What did teaching involve? What was the connection between Paul’s prohibitions of women’s teaching and the problem of false teaching, which was so prominent in 1 Timothy? Such questions may or may not involve the cultural background, but they certainly require some reconstruction of the circumstances behind the particular epistle.
It is sometimes difficult, of course, to distinguish what is, in fact, connected with cultural factors. The beards of hippies in the 1960s had a significance that Dwight L. Moody’s beard did not have. Therefore a book that might have been published in, say, 1968, urging Christian young men for the sake of the glory of God not to wear beards, would make no sense if the background were not known. Christians seem at ease with this way of dealing with culture when they substitute a handshake for the five New Testament commands to Christians to give one another a holy kiss.5 Some who take Paul’s teaching about women in 1 Timothy 2:12 as a universal rule interpret the words a few verses earlier about men raising holy hands in prayer, as well as the extensive instructions a few chapters later about widows, as cultural. Many Christians today (rightly or wrongly) refrain from footwashing on the same basis, even though Jesus based the command on doctrine—i.e., that he was their Savior and Lord (John 13:3, 13–14). Were these matters any less cultural than Plutarch’s idea that for a woman to speak publicly was an indecent exposure of her mind?6
Another approach to hermeneutics in connection with the issue of women in the church was taken by the Evangelical scholar Willard Swartley in his work Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women.7 In this he showed the similarity of approaches followed in discussions of each of these controversial topics and suggested some guidelines to prevent skewed interpretations. It has often been suggested that the use of arguments from selected texts to support slavery is paralleled by those used against women’s ministries today. Swartley has categorized the materials under several arguments, including these: “Slavery was divinely sanctioned among the patriarchs” and “Slavery was recognized and approved by Jesus Christ and the apostles.”8
Swartley offered a number of hermeneutical conclusions, including the following: (1) “Quoting the Bible does not in itself guarantee correctness of position.” (2) “To avoid selective use of evidence, the entire biblical witness on a given subject should be considered.” (3) “Each particular text or section of the Bible should be used for its main emphasis, not for its attendant features.” (4) “The interpreter should give priority to theological principles and basic moral imperatives rather than to specific council on particular topics when these two contradict.” (5) “The interpreter needs to examine carefully the factors that influence his/her use of Scripture. Religious, social, political, and economic factors affect our use of the Bible. Behind these are psychic forces related to our own lives, loves, values, and circles of friendship.”9 The list is long (there are twenty-two items in all) and includes the following important principle: “The biblical interpreter should recognize the temporal and cultural distance that exists between the world of the Bible and the world of the believer today, especially when addressing social issues. Whether the topic be slavery, war, or the role of women, the meaning of the same word, command, or instruction may differ significantly, depending on the historical and cultural place and time in which it was and is spoken.”10
Feminist Hermeneutics
This approach to the Bible is based on the growing consensus among modern hermeneutical theorists that it is impossible to interpret Scripture with complete objectivity. Although generations of conservative scholars have followed a methodology they call “grammatical-historical” (the exact wording varies) and thereby attempted to be rigorously objective and consequently accurate in their interpretation, it is now seriously doubted whether such objectivity is really obtainable. This naturally has a bearing on the way one interprets passages about women. Evangelicals, however, including those who recognize the existence of what has been called two “horizons” (the author’s and the reader’s vantage points)11 and even those who hold that biblical authors did write from a patriarchal perspective, still normally believe that what the Bible teaches is true and authoritative.
The approach of feminist hermeneutics, however, is not only to dispute objectivity but purposefully to acknowledge a feminist standpoint of interpretation. This is similar to (and many consider it a part of) the hermeneutics of liberation theology. Rosemary Radford Ruether included a chapter on women in her book on liberation theology.12 It is contended that women—like blacks, the disenfranchised poor, and other minorities—have been victimized by those in power. Those holding to male priority and dominance have shaped religious thought and structures from biblical times through today Therefore a radical new look at Scripture is needed. Mary Ann Tolbert summarizes the essence of feminist hermeneutics when she writes, “Whereas patriarchal hermeneutics grounds its perceptions in the ideological assurance of ‘reality’ or ‘the way things are,’ feminist hermeneutics self-consciously attempts to ground its analyses in the experience of women’s oppression.”13
Some feminists whose contributions were surveyed above, such as Mary Daly, have reached extremely negative views of Christianity. Others have tried to remain within a generally Christian framework. It is difficult for those with an Evangelical stance to understand the struggles of a Phyllis Trible, a Rosemary Radford Ruether, or an Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in grappling with feminist concerns on the one hand and with Christianity on the other. Fiorenza, for one, works on the premise that “all early Christian texts are formulated in an androcentric language and conditioned by their patriarchal milieu and histories.”14 Yet she also contends that “feminists cannot afford to disown androcentric biblical texts and patriarchal history as their own revelatory texts and history.”15
How then can one appropriate Scripture at all when it speaks of women? Fiorenza’s answer is: “Biblical revelation and truth are given only in those texts and interpretive models that transcend critically their patriarchal frameworks and allow for a vision of Christian women as historical and theological subjects and actors.”16 The implications of this position are immense. Passages of Scripture that do not say what the contemporary reader determines to be true from a feminist perspective are simply not accepted as “biblical revelation and truth.” If one were to charge that this is subjective, the answer is that it is consciously and deliberately so, to balance the patriarchal interpretations of centuries. It is not surprising that a work of the magnitude and importance of Fiorenza’s in Memory of Her has received wide attention. Some of the titles or subtitles of reviews reveal the radical nature of her proposals: “A Feminist Rereads the New Testament,”17 “A Feminist Reconstruction of Christian Origins,”18 and “The Reconstruction of Christian Origins.”19
For Fiorenza and many other feminists, Jesus himself was not androcentric or patriarchal in his attitude and teaching, but this was not true of all his followers. It is usual to consider Mark and John as more positive about the contribution of women than Luke.20 In fact, Luke, although traditionally thought of as very sensitive to, and appreciative of, women, has a low place in the opinion of contemporary feminists. This opinion was observed and challenged in the excursus to chapter 1. The view is expressed in comments such as these: “Luke characteristically qualified every mention of women by a reference to some negative aspect of their character…This is a literary device used throughout the gospel of Luke to present women as both weak and sinful.”21 For some scholars this builds on the assumption that Luke wrote late in the first century, during a period marked also by the writing of the Pastoral Epistles by a follower of Paul, when restrictions were being placed on the freedom women had earlier to minister.22
The issues are complex, as with many other aspects of women and the church, but clearly in feminist hermeneutics any acknowledgment of the authority of a given Scripture depends on the judgment of the reader.
The Citation of Scripture and Biblical Doctrine.
As in John 13:3, 13–14, where Jesus based the footwashing command on his lordship and saviorhood, so several commands or instructions about women are accompanied by references to theology or to the Old Testament. Paul refers to the order of creation in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, to headship in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, to the deceit of Eve in 1 Timothy 2, and to the obedience of Sarah in 1 Peter 3. The issue is whether such citations require that the instructions be understood as timeless and universal. Many doubt that this is the case with John 13. Is it so with other commands?
To some extent the answer involves details of exegesis. For example, is the word usually translated “for” (Greek gar) in 1 Timothy 2:13 to be interpreted as introducing an explanation of, or the grounds for, his conclusion?23 The options are discussed in appendix B in connection with 1 Timothy 2:12. However the grammar is understood, further questions have to be asked. One is whether the validity of a command is greater if it is supported by a reference to the creation narrative. If all Scripture is inspired and true, one might expect that it does not need a reference back to itself to be authoritative. Is it, therefore, right to insist on a universal and timeless application simply because it is accompanied by a secondary biblical reference? A traditionalist response might be that what is established by the referent is not the validity of the command but its nature.
Another question is how to understand such a directive when compared with Old Testament commands that are also based on revealed truth. For example, in Leviticus 19 a series of commands, including universals—such as “Do not steal,” “Do not lie”—are based on the words “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (v. 2), and “I am the LORD your God” (v. 3). Among these commands, however, are “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed” and “Do not wear clothing woven from two kinds of material” (v. 19). Although the transition of covenants or dispensations is generally assumed to be reason to ignore these directives, the fact remains that they are based on the nature of God. We may therefore question whether a theological basis in itself is reason to consider a command timeless and universal.
A third question is whether a reference to creation makes Paul’s teachings about women any more universally or permanently binding than is the Sabbath command, which is certainly part of the creation order. In fact, one might argue that the latter is even more foundational because it is part of the basic seven-day structure of the creation. Yet it is argued from the New Testament, with relatively few dissenters, that the Sabbath need not be observed now in the same way that it had been. Without entering into that discussion, we can observe several things. If one is considering order in creation, the sequence of days and the matter of the Sabbath certainly must not be overlooked. The concept of the Sabbath is found throughout Scripture. Hebrews 4:1–11 bases the idea of a Christian “rest” on the creation order of the Sabbath. At the same time, Jesus characteristically considered human need above the observance of a particular day, in spite of the unquestionable importance of the Sabbath. Yet Luke, emphasizing, as he often did, the fact that Jesus and the early Christians were faithful Jews, made a point of the fact that Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath “as was his custom” (Luke 4:16). The point is made even more strongly when Luke writes that after the crucifixion the women went home to prepare spices, “But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). It is certainly appropriate to ask, therefore, whether it is not hermeneutically proper to conclude that a reference can be made in Scripture to the order of creation to support a particular action without such a reference implying that the action must be repeated universally and permanently.
A fourth question is whether a biblical or theological allusion leads necessarily to the specific command given in the context, or whether it leads to a principle (perhaps unexpressed) that could be fulfilled in other ways in different circumstances. An illustration may be drawn from a culture in which it is considered improper for a woman to appear on the street unescorted. A woman who does so is suspected of being a prostitute. Perhaps Paul would have written the Christians there: “Because we are to show the holiness of God in our lives, I do not permit a woman to walk on the street unescorted.” The proper interpretation would be to understand the writer to mean, “Do not do anything that appears indecent, such as…” The obvious parallel here is the fact that unbound, uncovered hair in Paul’s world signified prostitution.24 The very act of a woman’s speaking in public was in itself a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum, “The medium is the message”). Conversely, today the absence of women from positions of responsibility in a contemporary Christian church or organization constitutes in itself a message to our generation. Obedience to a principle may, therefore, require a different action today from what it required in the New Testament period. This procedure must, of course, be clearly distinguished from that of “situational ethics,” which tends to ignore clear moral teachings.
In summary, great care is called for in applying proper principles of interpretation to the biblical passages about women. Perspectives on women and the church are inevitably affected by hermeneutics. But along with hermeneutics stands theology, and it is likewise inevitable that each person’s interpretation of matters has been modified to some extent as a result of previous theological conditioning. There are also some misconceptions that call now for correction.
Theology
Inerrancy
The topic of inerrancy relates both to hermeneutics and to theology. It is a subject under considerable debate today. Many, including the authors of this volume, consider it an essential element in discussions on Scripture. But it needs careful definition. It is rightly argued that defective hermeneutics can result in the term’s being applied too narrowly. In fact, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy considered the matter of hermeneutics so important that a “summit” conference was held on the subject and the results were later published.25
One sometimes hears it said, however, that it is impossible to allow the ordination of women and still hold to biblical inerrancy, or that to approve such ordination one must be either exegetically incompetent or disobedient to Scripture. It would seem that differences in opinion concerning such matters as baptism, eschatology, and the Calvinist-Arminian debate are often tolerated more graciously than differences about women. Even a high view of Scripture does not guarantee proper hermeneutics. It is not only unfortunate, therefore, but theologically faulty, so to identify an exegete’s opinion with the inspired Scriptures themselves that any deviation from that opinion is thought of as a deviation from biblical authority.
A serious question is raised, therefore, by such statements as the following by Susan Foh:
Biblical feminists see irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible’s teaching on women…Biblical feminists do not believe that God has given us his word true and trustworthy, the unchanging standard for beliefs and practices…The biblical feminists criticize the Old Testament and question its authority…The biblical feminists have abandoned the biblical and historic position of the God-breathed, inerrant Scriptures…A faulty conception of Scriptures produces apostasy.26
Remarks like these may be true of some feminists, especially those whom traditionalists call “radical,” but there are many biblical feminists today of whom the statements are not only untrue but also a very serious misrepresentation. Such language can have the unfortunate effect of leading readers to conclude that anyone who holds to views other than Foh’s regarding women’s ministries has abandoned inerrancy and become apostate. Further, her description of alleged error includes “a contradiction resulting from the culturally determined opinions of one of its human authors.”27 The transparent fact is, however, that any apparent contradictions between, for example, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, face the inerrantist as much as they do anyone else. They exist within the text itself. The introduction of cultural considerations may actually provide a solution that supports the concept of inerrancy. Without wanting to minimize Foh’s positive contributions, a call for caution is in order regarding these issues that require such delicate and balanced evaluation.
Inclusive Language and the Nature of God
Chapter 11 described the Inclusive Language Lectionary, an attempt to delete from the Bible all “improper” masculine terminology. Criticism of this revisionary text has centered on the use of inclusive terminology for God, extending even to referring to him as “Mother” as well as “Father.” The Lectionary itself is only one expression of a growing feminist theology that rejects all patriarchal ideas of God. Hymnology has come under scrutiny as a number of hymns not only assume male singers but address God in male terms (e.g., “High King of Heaven”). The Doxology has repeated references to “Him.” Some feminists find it difficult to say the Lord’s Prayer with its ascription of Fatherhood to God.
Among the biblical texts to which appeal is made are Genesis 2:28 (the creation of male and female in the image of God), passages that attribute motherly characteristics to God (e.g., Num. 11:12; Deut. 32:11–12; Isa. 49:15; 66:13), and the verse that gives a description of Jesus’ yearning for Jerusalem in terms of a mother hen’s desire to gather her chicks (Matt. 23:37). Difficult hermeneutical questions are involved here. Is a given masculine description of God metaphorical or analogical? If it is merely metaphorical, is it therefore legitimately balanced by the use of a feminine metaphor, on the assumption that had the Bible not been written in an androcentric, patriarchal society, it would have used some feminine terminology? Is the masculine terminology analogical and thereby expressive of a closer comparison between expression and subject? Do the terms Father and Son describe the nature of the Persons of the Trinity, or are they only figurative terms that can be modified without diminishing the truth of God’s nature?
Such questions go far beyond the scope and intention of this book. Nevertheless the subject is crucial. God, by any orthodox definition, transcends human masculinity and femininity. Therefore even core terms like “Father” cannot reduce God to our concepts of manhood. If there is a problem with such terminology, it does not lie in the nature of God nor in the words of Scripture, but in any meaning we ascribe to them that goes beyond the biblical intention and restricts God to human categories. Correspondingly, metaphors that ascribe feminine characteristics to God should be recognized as descriptive instruments to help us understand the depths of God’s character and care for us. Pagan deities were either masculine or feminine. God is infinitely greater than such categories.
The whole issue, described here only in broad strokes, requires theologically sophisticated discussion. Therefore some references are provided in a footnote for those who desire to pursue the matter further.28 But in spite of the complexity of the subject, the questions may be reduced to three: (1) How far can one remove or minimize certain expressions, such as “Father,” without distorting the nature of God? (2) What does one’s view of the inspiration and authority of the Scripture say to the proposal that biblical language descriptive of God (as distinguished from words of instruction relating to human circumstances such as were discussed earlier) reflect, not immutable truth, but patriarchal ideas? (3) Where is the boundary between metaphorical language that helps us understand God in terms appropriate to our own sphere of reference and language that conveys absolutes about the nature of God? Once again, hermeneutics and theology are joined together.
Creation, the Fall, and Redemption
This also is a topic that bridges hermeneutics and theology. The hermeneutical aspect, i.e., the citation of Old Testament events in the New Testament, was discussed above. The theological issues are whether woman was subordinate before the Fall, as part of the created order, and whether redemption in Christ removes any inferior position, restoring a pristine position of equality. First, many now dispute whether Genesis indicates that woman was created subordinate to man, or whether that state came about as a result of the Fall. It is sometimes claimed that the helper must be subordinate to the one helped, and that to name another is to show control or authority. Others hold that a proper understanding of the Hebrew word for “helper” and of the naming of Eve does not support the idea of subordination. A brief exegetical explanation is needed here: The word, “helper” (Gen. 2:18), is used for God a number of times, and this shows that the word does not in itself indicate subordination. Adam named the animals, but he did so before Eve was created, and, further, it was necessary for this to take place in order for his need for a woman to become clear to him. Adam did not name his wife “Eve” before the Fall but only called her a “woman” (Gen. 223). He named her “Eve” after the Fall (Gen. 3:20), and the Hebrew indicates the distinction in the naming process. Therefore, some scholars claim, it is not proper to deduce inferiority or subordination prior to the Fall. Further, the roles and functions given man and woman in the garden prior to the Fall appear to be undifferentiated. Adam’s responsibility in the garden was given before woman appeared. Furthermore, Adam seems incomplete without woman, not sufficient in himself. Within the Genesis account, therefore, there seems little ground for assuming women’s subordination before the Fall. (That man became domineering as a result of the Fall can hardly be disputed given Genesis 3:16.)
Paul, however, does refer back to the order of creation as a reason for the restriction he places on women’s teaching, as noted elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 and in 1 Timothy 2:13 this order constitutes part of Paul’s argument. Some find it noteworthy that when Paul seeks to impose a restriction on women, he reverts back to the Old Testament, particularly to the early part of Genesis. But when he proclaims that there is no difference between male and female in the Lord, he bases this on redemption—specifically, on justification by faith through grace (Gal. 328).29 This seems to vindicate the view that redemption makes a difference as to the position of women in Christian theology. The arguments from Genesis are useful when addressing a Jewish situation where restriction of some sort is necessary, but, it can be argued, the curse has been superseded by redemption. If so, it has been argued, just as farm machinery is used to alleviate the curse on the ground, and just as anesthesia is used to alleviate the pain of the woman in childbirth, so Christians should do everything possible to alleviate the effect of the Fall on male-female relationships, especially in the church.
Headship and the Relation Between Home and Church Roles
The main text is Ephesians 522–33. The occurrence of the concept of headship occurs also in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (discussed elsewhere), but here it is in a context that deals with the relationship of husband and wife. In neither case is the concept of headship applied to women’s ministry as such. It is useful to inquire when studying Ephesians 5 how the notion of headship is developed in the context. Put in other terms, if one did not know what “head” meant, what would one learn from its use here? More specifically in terms of the role of the husband, does it set forth the idea of authority or rulership? In verse 23 the mention of head is immediately followed by a reference to Christ’s being the “Savior” of the body. The idea of salvation includes, among other ideas, salvation from sin, rescue from danger, healing, and making one whole. Certainly the first of these is most prominent with respect to Christ. Some take it to be simply a descriptive phrase unrelated to the context; others think it suggests that Christ sets an example for husbands by bringing wholeness or completeness to the church. The passage goes on to speak of Christ’s loving the church, giving himself up for her, making her holy, cleansing her, making her radiant, feeding and caring for her (vv. 25–29). It must be acknowledged that nowhere does Paul mention rulership or authority. Yet the initial mention of Christ as head occurs between two statements that the wife is to submit to the husband. It seems, therefore, that we are less than honest with the text if we ignore the fact that even though the husband is not pictured as ruling, the portrayal of the wife as submitting is related to the husband’s headship.
This brings the discussion around to the matter of submission. In addition to questions discussed elsewhere, the following are relevant here: First, if, as many suggest today, Ephesians 522–33 teaches mutual submission (cf. v. 21) rather than a hierarchical relationship between husband and wife, does that mean that there is no hierarchy in the church? If a marriage is completely egalitarian, should men and women share leadership roles in the church equally?
Second, if on the other hand there is a divinely established hierarchical role relationship in marriage, whereby the wife submits to her husband in a way that the husband does not submit to the wife, in what form, if any, is this carried over to the church? Furthermore, would all women be submissive to all men in the church? What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34: “[Women] must be in submission”? (Appendix B will include reference to theories that this does not represent Paul’s teaching, but if this is Paul’s injunction, the question must be answered.) The options are (1) submission to all men, (2) submission to their own husbands, and (3) having a submissive attitude, particularly with regard to church order.
The first of these three options is not taught elsewhere in Scripture. The second would fit in with the idea that in this passage Paul may have been concerned lest women challenge their own husbands with questions during the judging of the prophets. The third is rendered likely by the fact that the Greek omits the usual mention of a person or persons to whom submission is given. Therefore, it may be reasonably supposed that they were being told to have a submissive attitude, in contrast to speaking out in challenge to others. This all introduces the question of the nature of the early church. Recent studies have probed the question of how the house churches were viewed socially. Were they perceived as a household unit under the leadership of the host? Did males, who were dominant in the households of that society, also lead in the house churches? If a church met in a household lacking a strong Christian husband, did the hostess take the lead when the Christians gathered there? What are we to conclude from, for example, the reference to “Nympha and the church in her house” (Col. 4:15) (italics mine)? Further study remains to be done on this whole issue.
The instructions Paul gave concerning qualifications for elders and deacons do link, in contrast to Ephesians 522–33, the life of these leaders at home and in the community to their role in the church. The elder “must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” (1 Tim. 3:4–5). A deacon “must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well” (1 Tim. 3:12). There is a clear relationship between the man’s role in the church as a leader and his role at home. Does this text imply that the man is the authority in the home? Can only males have authority in the church on this analogy, or does it mention men only because at that time it would have been unthinkable that women could be elders?
The Greek word translated “manage” in 1 Timothy 35, 12 means “to be up front,” “to exercise leadership.” But the word used two chapters later when Paul tells the young widows to marry and “manage their homes” (1 Tim. 5:14) is a much stronger word (oikodespotein [despotēs is the source of our word “despot”]). The noun form is the normal word used in the New Testament for the ruler of a house (Matt. 1025; 1327, 52; 21:11; 21:33; 24:43; Mark 14:14; Luke 12:39; 13:25; 1421; 22:11.) Figuratively it is also used of God.30 The word group also had strong meanings of mastery and predominance in the classical period.31 If a widow, left without the help of a man, is told to exercise such strong household management, one must assume that women were not by nature incapable of leadership. Would that then apply to a house church that lacked strong male leadership?
Such questions are theological in that they involve general concepts of headship, leadership, and the nature of the early church, and they are not easily answered simply on the basis of individual texts of Scripture. Appendix B will discuss exegetical issues, but resolution of those would not abrogate the need to reflect carefully on the preceding matters before applying the exegesis to contemporary situations.