–––––––––––––––––––––
The Role of Women at The Village Church
Our foundation for life and ministry starts with the understanding that the Bible is God’s
Word. As affirmed in our Statement of Basic Beliefs, “We believe the Scriptures are true,
authoritative and sufficient” (Ps. 19:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Therefore, we believe
that any attempt to understand personhood and gender must begin with divine revelation.
The Bible teaches that God created two complementary sexes of humans, male and
female, to bear His image together (Gen. 1:27-28; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). This distinction in
gender represents an essential characteristic of personhood and reflects an essential part of being
created in God’s image.
As outlined in Scripture and in accordance with our Statement of Faith, we believe that
men and women are absolutely equal in essence, dignity and value and are complementary by
divine design. Gender does not merely represent a social construct but, instead, represents a
reality present in every human from birth. Men and women are not interchangeable.
From the opening pages of Scripture, we find that God, in His wisdom and providence,
created two complementary sexes for our good and His glory. In light of His good created order,
and the fact that men and women both share in divine image bearing, God intends for men and
women to have different yet complementary roles and responsibilities in the church and home.
These role distinctions do not arise from cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity but
are an integral part of God’s plan for humanity, as revealed in Scripture. We should recognize
them as God’s grace to men and women, protecting, preserving and practicing them for His
glory, our joy and for the sake of human flourishing (Gen. 2:18-25; 1 Cor. 11:2-16, 14:33-35;
Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Tim. 2:8-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-7).
To reflect God’s beautiful design as The Village Church, we desire to articulate and
embody a theological vision of women in ministry, and of complementarianism, that honors the
Lord and results in human flourishing. This paper seeks to describe that vision by explaining
what we believe Holy Scripture teaches about gender complementarity as it relates to life and
faith at The Village Church.
Contemporary Landscape of Gender Issues
Our culture appears to be at a turning point as it relates to gender and personhood.
Examples of gender-related confusion abound in the contemporary landscape. Some seek to
sever gender identity from biology, making gender something that is attainable or even a matter
of the will. Others seek to redefine marriage as a loving union between two persons, regardless
of gender. As a church, we believe that the best way to reorient our disoriented world is to root
our understanding of gender in Scripture. However, that is easier said than done, because we are
certainly not the first to address this conversation through the lens of Scripture. We believe the
biblical text, while clear and authoritative about sexuality, is ultimately about the gospel of Jesus
Christ and should be read as a means to know Christ through the Spirit. Questionable
hermeneutics not only cloud the roles of men and women but ultimately the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
Theological Method and Assumptions
As a project in constructive pastoral theology, this paper employs exegetical, historical,
theological and pastoral resources to build a consistent view of gender complementarity as
demonstrated in Scripture and how it should be lived out in the world. At the beginning of this
project, it is essential to discuss our basic assumptions: biblical authority, complementarianism
and brotherly/sisterly love.
The Bible Is the Authoritative Word of God
First, we confess that Scripture is the Word of God. One of the most fundamental and
astonishing claims in Christian theology is that God has made Himself known. Nicholas
Wolterstorff writes, “Audacious, but common is the attribution of speech to God.” It is
1
audacious to say that God has spoken, but that is exactly the claim the Bible makes. In contrast to
mute idols, the true and living God is a speaking, commanding, promising and pledging God.
2
Christianity is a revealed religion. The Christian tradition maintains that God has disclosed
Himself and His purposes through His words and actions—more specifically, through
incarnation and inscripturation (through the person and work of Christ and the words of
1
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9.
2
Scott R. Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation
(New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 15.
Scripture). We agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
when it asserts “that the
3
Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God” and that “to stray from
Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and
trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its
authority.” Thus, exegesis of Scripture is of supreme importance because it is in the text that God
discloses Himself, His purposes and His gospel. We confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and we
4
believe that Scripture, in all its parts, is a testimony to Him. That means that we read Scripture in
light of God’s saving purposes in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and we must give
attention to Christ as He sets Himself before us, announcing the gospel to us, in Holy Scripture.
It is dangerous to mine through the Bible looking for answers to a specific set of
questions that arise uniquely in the modern era. The questions we ask of the biblical text
determine the kinds of answers we will get. The Bible is about God’s revelation of the salvific
events that culminate in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Scriptures have an integrity of
their own that must be respected and recognized. The Bible can only be properly read through
5
the illumination of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with God’s redemptive purposes. The Bible
must be taken on its own terms.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by the arguments calling for a trajectory hermeneutic.
We confess the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture along with the corollary doctrine of
6
3
Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993), 264.
4
Cf. J.B. Webster, Holiness
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 3.
5
Cf. Lints, The Fabric of Theology
.
6
The so-called trajectory hermeneutic, or redemptive movement hermeneutic, proposes that the biblical text is not
properly read for static meaning, but should be read through the lens of progress, redemption or trajectories. In other
words, the meaning in the text is best understood as it relates to the ethical trajectory to which it points. There are
some helpful insights that the trajectory hermeneutic proposes (the difficulty of applying the biblical text today, the
biblical inerrancy, which leads us to conclude the insufficiency of the methods employed by the
trajectory hermeneutic. This method of interpreting Scripture ultimately does harm to the biblical
text and is lacking in comparison to a historical-grammatical approach to Scripture.
The Village Church desires to be a place where the Word of God is preached, believed
and obeyed because we believe that what the Bible says, God says. John Calvin is right to say
that, “No one can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless they be a pupil of
Scripture.” Because the texts are difficult we may be tempted to err on the side of caution,
7
which can lead to overly restrictive readings. We do not want to say more or less than the
biblical text. We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to illumine our darkened eyes and hearts so
that we may become proper readers and interpreters of Scripture—readers who read in the way
of Christ (1 Cor. 2:6-16).
Given this confession of the ontology and function of Scripture, we desire to be biblical
in our explanation and practice of complementarianism. We want the pattern of our words to be
in accordance with the testimony of Holy Scripture. We also want to be careful not to say more
than Scripture says. One element of being biblical is to stop speaking where the Bible does. It is
easy to go further than Scripture and be restrictive where the Bible does not place restrictions.
We confess our need to be comfortable with mystery because the Scripture leaves room for
mystery.
importance of cultural context, etc.), but we believe that it is ultimately lacking as a biblical hermeneutic. Cf.
William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
, ed. Darrell L.
Bock (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001). For a helpful review see, Thomas R. Schreiner, “William J.
Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: A Review,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
6, no. 1 (2002): 46–64.
7
John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion
, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1.6.2.
Complementarianism
Our second assumption is that complementarianism is predominant throughout Scripture.
From the opening pages of Scripture, we find that God, in His wisdom and providence, created
two complementary sexes for our good and His glory. We affirm that, because both are created
in God’s image, men and women share more in common, as divine image bearers, than
distinguishes them. Men and women are absolutely equal in essence, dignity and value. At the
same time, they are complementary by divine design. Men and women correspond to one
another. We believe that, in every sphere of life, male and female image bearers flourish in
partnership. Where complementarity is lacking or absent, both genders suffer. The beauty of
8
complementarity is seen in a robust congregational life. The Bible uses imagery and language to
describe a vision of brothers and sisters partnering together in the kingdom of God. When we
don’t empower both men and women in complementarian partnership, the mission suffers.
9
When the Great Commission of Jesus Christ is central to the church, we will see both men and
women making disciples of all nations.
At The Village Church, we believe that Scripture intends for both men and women to be
equally involved and engaged in ministry and society. Being equally involved in ministry does
not entail being interchangeably involved. We believe the Bible reserves the office of
8
At first glance it may appear that there are roles, situations or contexts in which a single person, or a group of
people of the same gender, are not in complementary relationship with the other sex. For example, Christian
brothers and sisters who are single appear to not be in complementary relationships. However, we would point to the
local church as a congregation, a family, composed of brothers and sisters in complementarian relationship. Thus,
the local church, and membership in it, becomes another picture of complementarity. Further, it could appear that
the office of elder, since it is reserved for men, is lacking in complementarian partnership. In this instance, we would
believe that since the office of elder is reserved for men, it is essential for these men to seek out formal and informal
channels of input from their sisters.
9
Both men and women play an essential role in partnering together to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to all
nations (Matt. 28). In order for the gospel to go to all nations, both men and women must be taught and they must
teach.
elder/pastor specifically for qualified men. Scripture calls elders to lead the church (1 Tim. 5:17;
Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-2), preach the Word (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9), protect the church
from false teaching (Acts 20:17, 28-31; Titus 1:9) pray for and visit the sick (Jas. 5:14; Acts
20:35), equip the saints for ministry (Eph. 4:11-12) and use proper judgment in theological and
doctrinal matters (Acts 15). In shepherding, overseeing, leading, caring for and praying for the
local church, elders practice sacrificial male headship.
Apart from the role of pastor/elder, we believe the Bible explicitly encourages and
assumes that women will be involved in the ministry of the church. It is clear from Paul’s words
to Titus that older women teaching biblical wisdom to younger women is a noble, beautiful and
necessary task (Titus 2:3-5). Phoebe, a patron and deacon of the church of Cenchreae, is
commended by Paul and was likely the courier for Paul’s epistle to the Romans, indicating her
participation in gospel ministry (Rom. 16:1-2). Acts 18:26 describes Priscilla as “explaining the
way of God more accurately” to Apollos.
We celebrate the biblical picture of men and women serving the Church of the Lord Jesus
Christ together. We rejoice in biblical examples of men and women using their gifts in the
Church for the glory of God. The Village Church desires to be a place that embodies a beautiful
complementarian vision of ministry so that both sexes, young and old, will flourish.
Brotherly and Sisterly Love
Our third and final assumption relates to the Christian posture of brotherly and sisterly
love. At the heart of the Christian ethic is a disposition of love. This ethic ought to permeate all
relationships within the Church. One of the consistent commands in the New Testament is to
love one another with a brotherly/sisterly love. This is a concept that is unique to the Christian
tradition. The word consistently used by several authors is (φιλαδελφίᾳ ), which
10
means “the sense of love that is reserved for blood brothers and sisters.” Christians should see
11
themselves as a family in a special sense. Consider the following exhortations to a familial type
of love that characterized the early Church. Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, exhorts them
to, “Love one another with brotherly affection (φιλαδελφίᾳ ). Outdo one another in
showing honor” (Rom. 12:10). Writing to the Thessalonians, he maintains, “Now concerning
brotherly love (φιλαδελφίᾳ ) you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you
yourselves have been taught by God to love one another” (1 Thess. 4:9). The author of Hebrews
contends, “Let brotherly love (φιλαδελφίᾳ ) continue” (Heb. 13:1). Peter encourages
Christians to continue to pursue “godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection
(φιλαδελφίᾳ ) with love” (2 Pet. 1:7). We affirm that cultivating an environment of
brotherly and sisterly love is at the heart of complementarianism. The predominant relationship
in the Church between men and women is the relationship of brothers and sisters, not
subordinates. These relationships should be marked by honor, care and sacrifice for one another.
Exegesis of Primary Passages
The goal of the following exegetical section(s) is not to provide an entire biblical
theology of complementarianism. Rather, it is to consider some of the key passages where
10
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 444. Morris asserts, “The idea of
brotherly love
is not found anywhere but among the Christians...God was their Father and they were all brothers and
sisters. Therefore they were united in a love that other people saw only in those of a natural family.”
Ibid.
11
Walter Bauer and Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature
, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 1055.
complementarity is addressed in Holy Scripture. The texts that will be addressed are as follows:
Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:18-25, Genesis 3:14-19, Romans 16:1-16, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1
Corinthians 14:26-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
12
Genesis 1:26-28
The opening pages of Scripture present the reader with a glorious picture of the Creator
God and His creation. God creates all things and pronounces them good. The creation narrative
13
demonstrates that God takes what was disorderly and creates order.
14
Verse 26 states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’”
Genesis 1:26-28 places a primary emphasis on the fact that humanity is the purpose and end of
the whole work of creation. In contrast to the command, “Let there be…” common to the first
five days of creation, God says, “let us make” at the creation of humankind, indicating the
unique, personal nature of this final creative act.
Man (םָ֛דאָ) is used here to refer not to an individual specifically but all of humanity.
15
The pinnacle of God’s creation are those who bear His image. Because they are created in the
image of God, humans correspond more closely to Him than any other creature. No other
16
12
Our aim is not to consider each passage exhaustively. Rather, specific attention will be given to language and
themes that relate directly to complementarian theology and practice.
13
For a brief but helpful article on the structure, plot and theology of Genesis, see L.A. Turner’s “Book of Genesis,”
ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker, W., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
(Downers Grove:
IVP, 2003).
14
Ibid., 357.
15
Kenneth Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1- 11:26
(Nashville: Holman, 1996), 174.
16
Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013),
658–660. Bird notes that there has been no lack of discussion as to what exactly it means to be created in the image
of God. Several views have been put forth. First, the substantive view indicates that image bearers share in divine
capacities (rationality, reflection, moral discourse, etc.). Second, the relational view maintains that to be created in
the image of God means to share in God’s relational capacity. Third, the functional view asserts that to be created in
creatures, not even angels, were created in God’s image. God created all of humanity—male and
female—in His likeness. Humans, therefore, are distinguished from all of the rest of creation.
17
Humans are not compared to other creatures of the same sex, because there are no other creatures
to which humans may be compared. Rather, humanity, male and female, is compared to God
Himself. Christian anthropology does not begin in Genesis 3 with the Fall but begins in the
18
Garden of Eden, as both male and female were created to be God’s representatives to all of
creation.
One of the primary purposes of humanity is announced in verse 26: Image bearers are to
“have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock
and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God creates
humanity in His image for the express purpose that they should fill, subdue and have dominion
over the earth. The task given in the cultural mandate cannot be fulfilled by one sex, male or
19
female, but can only be fulfilled by means of both sexes in a complementary relationship.
Humanity, both male and female, in this passage bears God’s image and represents God to all of
creation. Neither man nor woman can execute this task without the other. The Bible teaches that
Adam and Eve are endowed with a priestly status that enables them to serve in the temple-garden
and enjoy direct access to God. Those created in the imago dei
possess a “royal vocation that
the image of God means to exercise dominion over creation. Finally, the royal view is a variation of the functional
view, which maintains that to be created in God’s image is to be created to rule.
17
A full theological presentation of the imago dei
is outside the scope of this paper. However, two important works
for further consultation and consideration on the imago dei
are: Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion
(IVP,
2015).
18
Eugene Merrill, “Image of God,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 443.
19
Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 215.
reflects the reign of God in their stewardship over creation.” They are appointed as God’s vice
20
regents to govern the earth on His behalf. Humanity is meant to rule over the creation so that
21
God’s reputation and glory are spread throughout all of His creation. Note that God grants the
22
ability to rule collectively to both male and female. In other words, an inherent authority is given
to both men and women.
23
Verse 27 notes, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them.” This passage affirms the distinct sexes of God’s image
bearers. God created His image bearers to be male (םדא) and female (הָב
ֵ
ק
ְ
נ). Though sex
distinctions would have been part of the lower orders of creation, they receive no emphasis in the
account until the creation of humanity. Genesis 1:27 takes pains to express that God created
24
humankind as male and female. Each individual, male or female, is created in the image of God,
and humanity cannot bear God’s image to the next generation apart from the contributions of
20
Bird, Evangelical Theology
, 661. Of course, it is essential to point out that the imago dei
cannot be separated from
Christology. F. F. Bruce notes, “Jesus Christ is the one who is both the perfect image of God and the perfect image
of man. To say that Christ is the image of God is to say that in him the nature and being of God have been perfectly
revealed – that in him the invisible has become visible.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon,
and to the Ephesians
, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 57–58.
21
T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology
(Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 2009), 76. Cf. T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the
Pentateuch
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 125.
22
Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 34.
23
Bruce K. Waltke, “Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation,” Westminster Theological Journal
71, no. 1 (March 1,
2009): 218.
24
John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995), 95.
both sexes. When human sexuality is distorted, overlooked or seen as interchangeable, the
25
image of God in the human family suffers, and consequently, so does the human family.
26
Verse 28 expands on the cultural mandate that God gives to humanity. They are called to,
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” The
man and the woman are told to “Edenize” all of God’s creation. This commission is not given to
the man alone or to the woman alone: It is given equally to both. Neither male nor female can
fulfill God’s mandate by themselves—they must depend on each other in complementarity.
Mathews maintains, “The commissioning of man and woman to reign over the good land (1:28)
involves procreation, and only together can they achieve their destiny. This unity, however, is
not merely sexual; it involves sharing spiritual, intellectual, and emotional dimensions as well.”
27
God’s design for humanity, to be vice regents taking dominion over all creation, cannot be
accomplished by only one of the sexes. Both men and women (םָ֛דאָ) are equally involved,
28
though in separate roles, in the mandate to subdue creation. The concept of humanity taking
dominion, or subduing creation, connotes a royal figure representing God as His appointed ruler.
In other words, all humans, not just kings and queens, have the special status of royalty in God’s
25
Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach
(Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007), 221. Waltke goes on to indicate that this reality indicates that neither sex is
ontologically superior to the other.
26
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 174.
27
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 213.
28
For a helpful resource on a biblical theology of dominion and dynasty see, Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and
Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003).
eyes. The proper role of both sexes in this mandate is crucial for God’s design for human life
29
and prosperity.
This means there is no place in God’s created order for unisexuality or for any
diminishing or confusion of sexual identity. Human sexuality in Genesis is sacred in the creative
purposes of God, and it is essential for carrying out the cultural mandate (cf. 9:1, 7; 12:1-3;
26:24; 28:3-4). Genesis 1 affirms that sexuality is not an accident of nature, not a biological
30
phenomenon; rather, it is a gift of God.
Genesis 2:18-25
The second text this paper will consider is Genesis 2:18-25. Upon completion of His
creation, God pronounces everything that He has created to be good, except for one thing: The
man does not have a suitable companion. Genesis 2:18 asserts, “It is not good that man should be
alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Mathews notes, “The Hebrew construction of v. 18
accentuates the negative phrase ‘not good’ by placing it at the head of the sentence.” Even in
31
this idyllic setting, man is in need of a complementary partner, showing that even in the best of
circumstances, even in the garden, man and woman are in deep need of each other. God gives to
man a “helper” (ר
ֶ
ז֖
ֵ
ע) in Genesis 2:18. There is no sense derived from the word linguistically or
32
from the context of the garden narrative that the woman is a lesser person because her role
29
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 213.
30
Ibid., 173–74.
31
Ibid., 213.
32
This term in a masculine in gender, but here is used to refer to a woman. Any suggestion that this word denotes
subordination is refuted by the fact that most frequently the same word describes Yahweh's relationship to Israel.
differs. Some readers believe that a “helper” implies subordination, but this stands in
33
contradiction to how this word is used elsewhere in Scripture. This word is primarily used to
34
describe Yahweh's relationship to Israel because He is Israel's helper (Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7, 26,
29; Ps. 33:20; 115:9-11; 124:8; 145:5). This narrative tells us that the woman is man’s
indispensable partner, a necessary ally. Mathews states, “What the man lacks, the woman
accomplishes.” Some scholars have pointed out that the term “helper” in 2:18 anticipates, in a
35
rather unexpected way, how the woman will be a “helper” to her husband: Through her seed, she
will be instrumental in providing salvation for fallen Adam. This interpretation draws strength
36
from a fascinating wordplay between the Hebrew word for “seed” (הּ֑
ָ
ע
ְ
רַז) in Genesis 3:15 and the
similar sounding “helper” (ר
ֶ
ז֖
ֵ
ע).
It is also important to point out that man’s helper is “fit” for him, which indicates a
correspondence between the man and the woman. Mathews points out, “Man and woman share
‘human’ sameness that cannot be found elsewhere in creation among the beasts. In every way,
the woman shares in the same features of personhood as that of the man.” The “likeness” that
37
the man and the woman share with God in chapter 1 finds an analogy in the “likeness” between
the man and his wife in chapter 2. Because of this, any biblical description of complementarity
38
must emphasize both what men and women share in common, and what distinguishes them.
33
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 215.
34
Tremper Longman, Genesis
, ed. Scot McKnight, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2016), 50.
35
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 213.
36
Ibid., 214.
37
Ibid., 213.
38
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative
, 102.
Verses 19-20 explore the similarity and dissimilarity between humanity and the animals.
As Adam takes dominion over the animals by naming them, “no suitable helper was found.” This
distinguishes image bearers from the animal kingdom in God’s created order. In verses 21-22,
the man is put into a deep sleep, and the woman is fashioned out of the side of man. It is
fascinating to note that none of Israel’s neighbors had a tradition involving a separate account of
the creation of the female. The text notes that God took one of the “sides” (עלצ), often
39
translated “rib,” of man. The better translation is “side.” The woman was taken from the man’s
side to show that she was of the same substance as the man and to underscore the unity of the
human family, having one source. This “from-the-side” creation brilliantly depicts the
40
relationship between the man and the wife. Cassuto notes, “Just as the rib is found at the side of
the man and is attached to him, even so the good wife, the rib of her husband, stands at his side
to be his helper-counterpart, and her soul is bound up with his.” Matthew Henry’s comments on
41
the text are instructive: “Not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled
upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his
heart to be beloved.” The Hebrew word for “made” (הָנָבּ) reminds the reader that God is the
42
Creator of all created things. What God is building in this text is a perfect, harmonious,
side-by-side marriage relationship between the man and the woman.
39
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 177.
40
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 216.
41
Umberto Cassuto, From Adam to Noah: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis I- VI
, 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Hebrew
University, 1961), 134.
42
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 10.
In verse 23, the words of a human being are recorded for the first time in Scripture. The
man exclaims in poetic fashion, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall
be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The first human utterance is a hymn that
beautifully describes the unique compatibility of man and woman. The phrase “this at last is”
voices the resolution of the man's loneliness. His exclamation shows that he and the woman
share the same substance, and therefore the same source. Mathews asserts, “Adam’s response
centers on the sameness that he and the woman share as opposed to the creatures.” The man
43
recognized his own likeness in the woman. This poetic formula demonstrates the equality of
44
man and woman as it relates to their humanity and their distinctness from the animals.
Some commentators have also pointed out that not only should this poem be read as a
statement of origin but also of loyalty. Hamilton maintains that this is “a covenantal statement of
his commitment to her. Thus it would serve as the biblical counterpart to a modern marriage
ceremony.” Mathews agreed, stating, “The expression refers to covenant loyalty, in which case
45
Adam is expressing a covenant commitment.” In identifying her as “woman,” the man also
46
identifies himself as “man” (שׁיא), restating his own identity. Though they are equal in nature,
this text shows that the man and the woman in the garden are distinct.
In light of this commitment to one another, verse 24 states, “...a man shall leave his father
and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Some commentators
have brought attention to the puzzling fact that, in this patriarchal society, the man is the one
43
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 218–19.
44
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative
, 102.
45
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
, 180.
46
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 219.
who leaves his home rather than the woman. Others have noted that the most crucial element in
47
this verse is found in the two verbs it uses: “leaves” (בַז
ָ
ע) and “hold fast” (קַבָדּ). The verb
“leave” is frequently used to describe Israel's rejection of her covenant relationship with Yahweh
(Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:19). In contrast, the verb “hold fast” is often
used to describe the maintenance of the covenant relationship (Deut. 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:5;
30:20). This indicates the unique relationship that the man and the woman are designed for that
foreshadows Christ’s relationship with His Church. The man and the woman become one flesh
and leave their previous family commitments (father and mother) for loyalty to one another.
Verse 24 pinpoints the inherent solidarity in marriage between one man and one woman.
48
Chapter 2 ends in verse 25, a verse that indicates the kind of relationship that the
pre-fallen man and woman enjoyed: “The man and his wife were both naked and were not
ashamed.” In the Old Testament, the term for “naked” (םַר
ָ
ע) is most often linked with some form
of humiliation. Mathews maintains, “Nakedness among the Hebrews was shameful because it
49
was often associated with guilt.” Genesis 2:25 is an exception because it uses the term
50
positively. This shows how differently man and woman were able to relate to one another before
the Fall. It is remarkable that this first couple could be naked without embarrassment and shame.
Further, the man and the woman delight in their nakedness and their physical differences.
47
Gerhard von Rad, Genesis
, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1973), 85.
48
Gordon John Wenham, Genesis 1-15
, ed. John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2014), 181.
49
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
, 181. Cf. (1)
as a description of the poor (Job 24:7, 10; 31:19; Ezek. 18:16); (2) as a sign of shame or guilt (Gen. 3:7, 10, 11;
Ezek. 16:22, 37, 39; Hos. 2:3; Amos 2:16; Mic. 1:8); (3) in reference to birth (Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15).
50
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 225.
The garden paradise that God has built is now complete with the presence of image
bearers—male and female—who have an intimate and congruous marriage. In this we see
51
complementarity before the Fall. In Adam, there are indications of male headship indicated by
his naming of the animals and recognition of Eve as his human counterpart who shares in image
bearing. In Eve, we see a woman who is given to Adam as a helper and who will be given the
52
responsibility of childbearing. By virtue of biology, the man’s physical dominance presents him
as a protector, and the woman’s biology marks her as a life-giver. Genesis 2 depicts the ideal of
marriage as it was understood by ancient Israel and the goal to which Israel hoped to return when
the promises to Abraham were fulfilled.
53
Genesis 3:14-19
Genesis 3 marks a transition from the perfect and ordered relationship that humans have
with God (Gen. 1:31; 2:15-17) and with each other (Gen. 2:23-25) to a situation of disorder in
which they accuse each other and God (Gen. 3:12) and are in conflict with the rest of creation
(Gen. 3:15, 17-19). As a result, their relationships will now be marked by pain and domination
51
Cf. Longman, Genesis
, 39. Longman further states, “Genesis 1 – 2 informs the reader that gender and sexuality are
part of the creation, not part of the Creator. God may not be described as male or female. We have seen that men and
women are created in the image of God, showing that both genders reflect the divine glory. In keeping with biblical
practice, we should refer to God as ‘He,’ but not as male.” Ibid.
52
It is important to point out Adam’s headship before the Fall because we do not believe that headship is a result of
the Fall. Schreiner points to six indications that Adam had the special status of head before the Fall. 1) God created
Adam first, then Eve. 2) God gave Adam the command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
3) God created Eve to be a helper for Adam. 4) Adam exercised his leadership by naming the creature God formed
out of Adam’s rib “woman.” 5) The serpent subverted God’s pattern of leadership by tempting Eve rather than
Adam. 6) God approached Adam first after the couple had sinned, even though Eve sinned first. As Schreiner notes,
he is not suggesting that every one of these arguments has equal weight or clarity, but that taken as a whole there are
indications of male headship before the Fall. Cf. Stanley N. Gundry et al., Two Views on Women in Ministry
, ed.
James R. Beck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 289.
53
Wenham, Genesis 1-15
, 1:69.
(Gen 3:16). The stark contrast between the first two chapters and the third chapter of Genesis
54
cannot be overstated. Specifically, this paper will focus on how the primal sin of the first humans
impacted their relationship with each other, with God and with the rest of creation. At the heart
of Genesis 3 is the account of how the human couple willfully abandoned their principal duties
as priestly vice regents.
55
The events of Genesis 3 are critical for understanding the overarching biblical narrative.
Genesis 3:1 opens with a surprising encounter with a serpent. Mathews notes, “The serpent is
unforeseen in the narrative and appears suddenly.” One of Adam and Eve’s primary
56
responsibilities was to guard the sanctity of the garden. G.K. Beale maintains, “When Adam
failed to guard the Temple by sinning and letting a foul serpent defile the sanctuary, he lost his
priestly role, and the cherubim took the responsibility of guarding the garden temple.” The
57
serpent intentionally distorts God’s word as he works to deceive the woman. Instead of banishing
the serpent, the first couple obeys one of the creatures that they were meant to rule over.
Humanity was supposed to be God’s obedient servants, maintaining both the physical and
spiritual welfare of the garden, which included keeping evil influences from invading the
sanctuary. Rather than taking dominion over the creation, one of the creatures takes dominion
58
over the vice regents.
54
Turner, “Book of Genesis,” 357.
55
Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land
, 127.
56
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 232.
57
G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God
(Downers
Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2004), 17.
58
G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New
(Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2011), 32.
When confronted by the satanic serpent, Adam’s wife responds by quoting Genesis
2:16-17 but changes the words, indicating she either failed to remember God’s word or
intentionally changed it for her own purposes. The Bible’s first recorded sin is found in Genesis
59
3:6. The event is recorded with these words: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,
she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he
ate.” Later biblical revelation indicates that Eve failed because she was deceived (1 Tim. 2:14),
however, no explanation is given for Adam’s decision to eat. Though Adam was not deceived, he
is certainly held responsible for sinning against God. The Bible places the blame for the primal
sin on Adam (Rom. 5:17). It is enough to say that both the man and the woman fall headlong into
ruin and destruction by being disobedient to God’s commands and seeking to rise above the
limitations imposed upon them by their Creator.
60
Verses 8-13 contain an intense conversation between God and the human couple. In
verses 14-19, the Bible describes the consequences of their transgression. It should be noted that
neither the man nor the woman are cursed: only the serpent (v. 14) and the soil (v. 17) are cursed
because of sin. Verses 14 and 15 describe the judgment of the serpent. Verse 15 in particular is
61
one of the most well-known verses in all of Scripture. Here, God tells the serpent about a
judgment and a promise. First, the serpent is banned and is commanded to crawl: He is under
judgment. Second, he is promised that some member of the human race will one day crush him:
He is promised that he will be destroyed. Specifically, his destruction will come through this
59
Cf. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 1997), 134–35.
60
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
, 190.
61
Wenham, Genesis 1-15
, 1:81.
seed (עַר
ֶ
ז) of the woman, namely Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:15). Jesus Christ is the One,
62
who through His life, death, burial and resurrection has accomplished God’s final and decisive
victory. All of God’s enemies will be put under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25), and He comes as the
63
skull-crushing seed of the woman who triumphs over the serpent. Revelation 20:2 confirms that
the “ancient serpent” is destroyed by God because he has been a deceiver of the nations.
The verses immediately following (vv. 3:16-19) describe the serious consequences of sin
for humanity—specifically their relationship to God and one another. Verse 16 highlights the
consequences for the woman, first as she relates to childbirth and her children, and then to her
husband. Interestingly, unlike the sentences announced against the serpent and the man, there is
64
no occurrence of “curse” related to the woman’s suffering. Additionally, there is no cause
65
specified for her suffering. The serpent is charged with deception (v. 14), and the man is charged
with disobedience (v. 17). Mathews contends that, “This is due to the woman’s culpability
through deception, in contrast with the willful rebellion of the serpent and man.” In other
66
words, the man was willfully rebellious, but the woman’s rebellion came through her deception
(1 Tim. 2:14). Therefore, Adam’s action condemned the human family, but Eve will play a
critical role in liberating humanity from sin’s consequences. As noted in the previous verse, the
62
There has been some academic debate as to whether this seed refers to a collective group of people or to a specific
descendant. The storyline of the Bible points to Jesus Christ as the offspring predicted here. Failing to see the
messianic prophecy contained in Genesis 3:15 does not do proper justice to the text, or to the storyline of Scripture.
Cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 10.
63
For a helpful article on a biblical-theological perspective on the use of the term “seed” throughout Scripture, see
T. Desmond Alexander, “Seed,” ed. Brian S. Rosner et al., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
(Downers Grove:
IVP, 2000).
64
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative
, 108.
65
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 248.
66
Ibid.
final cosmic conflict will be humanity's victory by virtue of the woman’s role as child bearer.
67
The punishment for the woman also entails a future salvation (v. 15). The future salvation will
come, but it will not come without pain and discomfort.
68
Verse 16 notes two primary consequences of the woman’s actions: pain in childbearing
and conflict with her husband. Though the previous verse sounded a positive note on the seed
69
of the woman who will strike the serpent’s head, this verse is a reminder that the coming of this
seed will not be without pain. Her penalty stresses the “painful labor” (ןוֹבָצּ
ִ
ע) she must endure
70
in childbirth, but the punishment also nurtures hope, since it assumes that she will in fact live to
bear children. Painful childbirth signals hope but also serves as a perpetual reminder both of sin
71
and of the woman’s part in it. It signals hope because the final victory will come through the
72
seed of the woman, and it is the means through which the serpent will be defeated and blessing
will be restored. A role intended to be a source of fulfillment will now be a source of suffering.
Additionally, the woman’s sin will impact her relationship with her husband. The word
“desire” (ה
ָ
קוּשׁ
ְ
תּ) occurs two other places in Scripture (Gen. 4:7; Song of Sol. 7:11) and its
meaning in Genesis 3 is highly disputed. Here are some possible interpretations: 1) It may refer
to sexual satisfaction of the female; 2) it may mean that despite the discomforts and pain of
67
Ibid.
68
M.D. Gow, “Fall,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker, W., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 291.
69
One difficulty that is noted by virtually all scholars who study this verse is the question of whether this is
descriptive or prescriptive. In other words, are these negative consequences engineered directly by God, or is God
simply informing the woman of the way things will be from this moment on.
70
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
, 200.
71
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 250.
72
Ibid. Mathews further maintains, “By procreation the blessing for the human couple will be realized, and
ironically the blessing is assured in the divine pronouncement of the penalty. By this unexpected twist the vehicle of
her vindication (i.e., labor) trumpets her need for the deliverance she bears (cp. 1 Cor. 11:12).” Ibid.
childbearing, the woman will still long for sexual activity; 3) it may describe a new social reality
in which the woman will seek to rule over her husband. The word is only used two other times
73
in Scripture. In Genesis 4:7, the word describes sin’s attempt to control or dominate Cain. In
Song of Solomon 7:11, the word describes a desire of a sexual nature. Some interpreters, basing
their understanding of the word in Song of Solomon, believe that this passage is talking about
sexual desire due to the reference to childbirth in Genesis 3:15. This interpretation reads that,
despite her painful experience in childbirth, she will still have sexual desires for her husband.
74
Others believe that the word has a broader meaning, which would include the woman’s desire to
rule or master her husband. It is most likely that the clear meaning in 4:7 helps the reader
understand the less clear meaning of 3:16. Kidner comments, “She will have a desire to dominate
or master her husband.” Instead of flourishing in their roles of headship and helper, each will
75
attempt to rule each other. As Kidner states, “to love and to cherish becomes to desire and to
dominate.”
76
Not only will she have a desire to dominate, but her husband will “rule” over her. It is
important to understand this as the descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not simply a repetition of
Adam’s role of headship as described in Genesis 1-2; it is describing a new element of the
relationship that results from the Fall. The man will relate to his wife in a way that could be
characterized by harsh, exploitative subjugation. Hamilton describes the verse this way:
77
73
Cf. Gow, “Fall,” 289.
74
In this interpretation, it is important to note that, despite her pain in childbirth, she will still have sexual desires for
her husband, and the blessing of procreation will continue despite her potential reluctance due to the pain of
childbirth.
75
Derek Kidner, Genesis
(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2008), 71.
76
Ibid., 289.
77
Wenham, Genesis 1-15
, 1:81.
It means a desire to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a
relationship of servitude and domination. The sinful husband will try to be a
tyrant over his wife. Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of
God’s creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, each party trying to
rule the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other.
78
Note the sense of reciprocity. The man and woman were ordained to rule God’s creation
together, but in a fallen world, they will try instead to rule each other. Instead of taking dominion
over God’s creation, they will try to dominate one another. This text is describing how things
should not be; this is the broken world with broken relationships.
79
God’s final word is directed to the man in verses 17-19. Since Adam’s role was related to
cultivating the garden, he will now suffer in his role. The “good land” provided by the Creator in
chapters 1-2 is now cursed. The man will suffer lifelong in toilsome labor (vv. 17-18) followed
by death, which is the reversal of the creation process (vv. 1:19; 2:7). The man’s sin was that he
80
ate (vv. 3:6, 12), and the judgment matches the sin. The curse on the land is meant to show the
81
contrast between the condition of the land before and after the Fall. Because the man sinned at
the point of eating, now he will be judged by having difficulty in producing food. The world
82
experienced decay, not due to any failure on its part, but because of God’s condemnation of the
sin of Adam. However, creation looks to the prospects of redemption that will be realized by it
78
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17
, 202.
79
David J. Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1--11
(Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), 94.
80
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 252.
81
Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative
, 108. Throughout chapters 2 and 3, the text discusses man’s relationship
with his Creator through the theme of eating. God’s blessing and provision for the man are noted in the words,
“from all the trees of the garden you may freely eat” (2:16). Then, in chapter 3, the serpent raises questions about
God’s goodness through the theme of eating. Finally, humanity’s rebellion comes through eating. Therefore, the
judgment on man is that the ground from which he freely ate will now be cursed.
82
Gow, “Fall,” 290.
and the saints at the advent of Christ’s glory. Both the creation and the “children of God” groan
as with birth pangs (Gen. 3:15-16) for the dawning of the new era (Rom. 8:22-24).
83
The stark contrast between the scenes in Genesis 1-2 and Genesis 3 is stunning. These
chapters contrast the high status and function of sinless humanity pre-Fall to the shattered status
and function of sinful humanity post-Fall. This disobedience by Adam and Eve brought
expulsion from the garden, separation from God and eventually death. Human beings, both
84
male and female, were to rule the world as God’s vice regents, but now, both they and the world
have been blighted by sin. The curse, judgments and consequences touch every aspect of
85
human life: humanity’s relationship with God, with one another, birth and death, work and food.
Death encroached on every area of life, and disorder reigns supreme.
Romans 16:1-16
As Paul concludes his correspondence to the church in Rome, he includes a note of
personal greetings in which the reader catches a glimpse of his missionary theology. He
commences the final chapter with a commendation for Phoebe. Verse 1 states, “I commend to
86
you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae.” Doug Moo points out that,
87
“People who were traveling in an age with few public facilities often depended on the assistance
83
Mathews, The New American Commentary
, 263.
84
Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament
, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000),
69.
85
Schreiner, The King in His Beauty
, 10.
86
Letters of recommendation such as this were commonly used in the first-century Roman empire. People did a
good deal of traveling and often used letters of commendation to acquire accommodations. There are references to
letters of commendation in the New Testament (cf. Acts 18:27; 2 Cor. 3:1; 8:18-24; 3 John 9-10).
87
The verb “to commend” (Συνίστηµι) means, “to bring together as friends or in a trusting relationship by
commending/recommending, someone to someone else.” Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 972.
of people they had never met; and this assistance was easier to be had if the traveler could
produce a letter of introduction from someone known to the potential host.” So, Paul writes to
88
commend Phoebe to the Roman Christians so that they might offer her hospitality. Phoebe
89
(Φοίβην) is a Gentile Christian from Cenchreae. It is worth noting that Paul uses the
90
phrase “our sister” (τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡµῶν ), which indicates that she is a fellow believer
and part of the Church family. Additionally, the term “sister” relays an intimacy and warmth
characterizing the early Church. The relationship between family members describes most
appropriately the affiliation between Christians, both in Paul’s day and in ours. All believers in
91
the Lord Jesus Christ are a family.
Paul would likely have had ample opportunity to get to know Phoebe well because
Cenchreae is only eight miles from Corinth, where Paul spent over a year at one point (Acts
18:1-18) and is now staying as he writes to the Romans. C.E.B. Cranfield notes that in light of
92
this commendation, “It is highly probable that Phoebe was to be the bearer of Paul’s letter to
Rome.” Tom Schreiner agrees, noting, “Phoebe was probably the bearer of the letter, as some
93
of the ancient subscriptions in the letter indicate.” Robert Mounce agrees with Schreiner and
94
88
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 913.
89
The Christians were noted for their hospitality, and letters of recommendation were necessary as a way of
guarding against fraud. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 528.
90
Her Gentile background is inferred by her name, which is taken from Greek mythology. It is highly unlikely that a
Jewess would have a name derived from Greek mythology. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
, 913.
91
Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 786.
92
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
, 913.
93
C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans 9-16
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 780.
94
Schreiner, Romans
, 786.
Cranfield, stating his conclusion definitively: “Phoebe is undoubtedly the person carrying Paul’s
letter to the church at Rome.”
95
Not only is Phoebe called a sister, indicating the familial nature of Christian
relationships, and designated the bearer of the letter to Rome, she is also a “deacon”
(διάκονον) of the church in Cenchreae. This term presents something of a challenge for
translators and interpreters. The term deacon may be generic, denoting various kinds of
assistance. On the other hand, the term may denote an office (cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12). So, is
Paul commending Phoebe as an official deacon, who held an office, or because she served the
church at Cenchreae in a variety of unofficial ways? It is impossible to be absolutely positive,
but it is likely that she actually held the office of deacon. Cranfield maintains that it is much
more natural “to understand it as referring to a definite office.” Schreiner agrees that Phoebe
96
likely held the official office of deacon for several reasons. First, 1 Timothy 3:11 seems to
identify women as deacons. Second, the designation that Phoebe served as “deacon of the church
at Cenchreae” suggests that Phoebe served in an official capacity, for this is the only occasion
that the term (διάκονος) is linked with an individual, local church. Third, it is likely that
the masculine use of the noun (διάκονος) also suggests that the office is intended.
97
Paul continues his commendation of Phoebe and instruction to the Christians in Rome in
verse 2. He maintains that there are specific ways that they are meant to assist Phoebe. Paul
95
Robert Mounce, Romans: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture
(Nashville: Holman, 1995),
272.
96
Cranfield, Romans 9-16
, 781.
97
Schreiner, Romans
, 787. It is important to note that the office of deacon was still being established and was very
much still in process in the early Church. The New Testament does not give many details as to the specific action of
the office of deacon, but based partially on hints within the New Testament and the later institution of the diaconate,
it is likely that deacons were charged with visitation of the sick, poor relief, and perhaps also financial oversight of
the church. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
, 914.
intends for them to “welcome” (προσδέξησθε) her “in the Lord” in a way that is
fitting and distinct for believers, and that they are to “assist” (παραστῆτε ) her with
whatever needs may arise. Specifically, Paul insists that Phoebe be the recipient of their
hospitality. It is impossible to know what her specific needs may have been, but Paul is clear that
the Romans are to stand by her in whatever matter she may need.
98
Paul continues his commendation of Phoebe and instruction to the Romans by asserting
that she was a benefactor of many people, himself included. This indicates that she was a “person
of substantial means, and therefore able to travel, and as a servant of the church in Cenchreae she
was an appropriate person to act as a courier for Paul’s crucial letter to the churches of Rome,”
according to Kruse. The term Paul uses when describing Phoebe as a benefactor is “prostatis”
99
(προστάτις), meaning, “a woman in a supportive role, patron, benefactor.” Some
100
interpreters overstate the significance of this word, but in light of recent studies, it is plausible to
conclude that Paul’s description of Phoebe both as a deacon of the church and a benefactor of
himself and many others is sufficient to show that she exercised a significant ministry in the
church at Cenchreae, in addition to being a patron of Paul’s ministry.
101
The rest of Romans 16 is comprised of a list of greetings, one that reveals the warm
relationships that characterized the early Christian community. Nowhere else in Paul’s
102
98
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 528.
99
Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 556.
100
Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 885.
This term is not to be confused with the Roman patron-client system, which was of a different order and alien to the
Greek tradition. Therefore, we cannot reason from that that Phoebe was the legal protector of the Christians at
Cenchreae, for a woman could not hold that position. The word must be used figuratively in this place. But it is a
word that points to an important person. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 529.
101
Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans
, 557.
102
Schreiner, Romans
, 789. In this greeting, Paul lists a number of prominent and respected believers in Rome in
order to indicate the legitimacy of the gospel.
writings do we find such a lengthy list of personal greetings. While this list is remarkable for a
103
number of reasons, it is particularly noteworthy for the number of women who are mentioned,
namely, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother and Julia. This list
demonstrates that women were actively involved in ministry.
104
The verb “to labor” (κοπιάω) is used of four women: Mary (v. 6), Tryphaena,
Tryphosa and Persis (v. 12). This is interesting to note because the same verb is used to describe
Paul’s ministry (1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 4:11; Phil. 2:16; Col. 1:29; 1 Tim. 4:10) and of others who
are described as working in ministry (1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17). Although Prisca
and Aquila, along with Urbanus, are called “fellow workers” (vv. 3, 9), it is interesting that the
mention of exhausting work is restricted to women. Schreiner concludes that these women
105
were likely vitally involved in ministry.
106
Additionally, the term “co-worker” (συνεργός) is also used for men and women
involved in Christian ministry. Paul begins his greetings by designating Prisca and Aquila as
“co-workers.” Some commentators note that, since Prisca is named first in some texts (Acts
107
18:26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19), she was likely more prominent and knowledgeable than Aquila.
103
Mounce, Romans
, 274.
104
Schreiner, Romans
, 793.
105
Mounce, Romans
, 275.
106
The verb (κοπιάω) does tell us that women were involved in important ministerial work in the early
Church. However, James Dunn notes, “This general term does not necessarily denote leadership.” James D.G. Dunn,
Romans 9-16
, vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 894.
107
We know from Acts, where she is called Priscilla, that they were expelled from Rome because of Claudius’
decree (Acts 18:2). From there they traveled to Corinth, met Paul, who shared in the same trade, and ministered with
him. Next, we find Priscilla and Aquila at Ephesus (Acts 18:25-26), where they instruct Apollos more accurately in
the gospel. By the time Romans was written, they had returned to Rome, and the church was meeting in their house
(Rom. 16:5). By the time Paul wrote his last letter, they had returned to Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19).
This hypothesis may be true, although it is impossible to verify. What is undebatable is that
108 109
Prisca and Aquila worked together and were vitally involved in the early Christian movement.
Schreiner maintains, “What is notable here is that Prisca was as involved in this task as her
husband Aquila.” This term, then, is used in the New Testament of people who worked
110
together in the fellowship of the gospel. One of the ways Prisca and Aquila labored for the
111
sake of the gospel was by having a church meet in their house almost everywhere they went.
112
Paul's final greeting at the end of Romans does have one controversial reference found in
verse 7. One of the primary questions in this text is the identity of Andronicus and Junia(s).
113
Does the text refer to a man or a woman? Some have advocated that the name is a contraction of
Junianus, in which case it is masculine. “Such a contraction is possible,” Schreiner notes, “since
contractions were quite common.” However, most recent commentators, and by far the
114
majority opinion of commentators before the 13th century, favored the interpretation that Junias
108
Cranfield suggests, “The noteworthy fact that the wife’s name is more often placed before her husband’s than
after it in the NT is, we would think, much more probably to be explained as a due either to her having been
converted before him (and perhaps having led her husband to faith in Christ) or to her having played an even more
prominent part in the life and work of the church then Aquila, than to her having been socially superior to him.”
Cranfield, Romans 9-16
, 784.
109
Schreiner, Romans
, 795.
110
Ibid.
111
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 532.
112
There were no church buildings in the first century (not until the third century on our present information), so it
was natural for Christians to meet in private homes. Ibid.
113
Paul greets Andronicus and Junia(s) and they are designated as kindred (συγγενής), which means they
were Jewish (cf. Rom. 9:3). Paul also notes that they were fellow prisoners (συναιχµάλωτος) for the
sake of the gospel.
114
Schreiner, Romans
, 796.
is a woman. This is because evidence for the contracted name is completely lacking in other
115
Greek literature. Further, it is probable that Andronicus and Junias were a husband and wife.
116
One of the primary reasons the above interpretation matters is due to the phrase that
immediately follows. How should we interpret the phrase “ἐπίσηµοι ἐν τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις ”? The minority position is that it should read, “outstanding in the eyes of
the apostles.” A large consensus prefers the translation, “distinguished among the apostles.”
Schreiner notes, “The latter is almost surely right, for this is the more natural way of
understanding the prepositional phrase.” However, he is also quick to note, “Paul is certainly
117
not placing them among the Twelve.” The term “apostle” can have a technical sense, when
118
used to refer to the Twelve, and a more non-technical sense, when used to refer to an important
messenger. Morris asserts, “It is fairly clear from the New Testament that there was a wider
119
circle of apostles than the Twelve, and it would seem that this couple belonged to that wider
circle.” The term “apostle” (ἀποστόλοις ) likely is used to refer to an itinerant
120
evangelist or missionary. Due to this general use of the term, when referring to women and
121
gender roles, Mounce asserts, “Since the term ‘apostles’ here should be understood in the wider
115
Ibid. Mounce maintains that virtually all, “Patristic commentators read Junia and considered her to be the wife of
Andronicus.” Mounce, Romans
, 275. Cf. Michael Burer and Daniel B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A
Re-Examination of Rom 16.7,” New Testament Studies
47 (2001): 76–78.
116
Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans
, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993),
737–38.
117
Schreiner, Romans
, 796.
118
Ibid.
119
The term (άποστόλος) in this case likely refers to an important messenger of the gospel, but not
necessarily the narrower, more technical usage. Cf. Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 122.
120
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 534. Cf. E.E. Ellis, “Paul and His Co-Workers,” ed. G.F Hawthorne and R.P.
Martin, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 186.
121
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
, 924.
sense of those who served as missionaries and evangelists, the passage really contributes little to
the debate,” about the identity of Junias. While Mounce’s caution is important, it is also wise
122
to heed this comment from Cranfield:
That Paul should not only include a woman…among the apostles but actually
describe her, together with Andronicus, as outstanding among them, is highly
significant evidence (along with the importance he accords in this chapter to
Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, the mother of Rufus, Julia
and the sister of Nereus) of the falsity of the widespread and stubbornly persistent
notion that Paul had a low view of women and something to which the Church as
a whole has not yet paid sufficient attention.
123
Concluding on this note, we can affirm along with John Chrysostom, “Oh! how great is the
devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”
124
In his closing comments on this passage, Moo notes:
All mention of nine women in this list reminds us (if we needed the reminder) that
women played an important role in the early church. Moreover, five of these
women — Prisca (v.3), Junia (v. 7), Tryphaena and Tryphosa (v. 12), and Persis
(v.12) — are commended for their labor “in the Lord.” Ministry in the early
church was never confined to men; these greetings and other similar passages
show that women engaged in ministries and work just as important as those of
men.
125
The final chapter in Romans cannot be overlooked as we consider the ministry of the
early Church. As we study these names and the ministry they represent, we should be struck by
how powerfully they indicate the way in which the teaching of Jesus and Paul was worked out in
practice. Romans 16 echoes the earliest chapters in Genesis, which depict men and women
co-laboring alongside one another stewarding the kingdom of God.
122
Mounce, Romans
, 275–76.
123
Cranfield, Romans 9-16
, 789.
124
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
, 534.
125
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
, 927.
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
The complexity of this passage continues to frustrate modern interpreters, presenting the
temptation to make the text say what they would like it to say. This is one of the lengthiest
passages in the New Testament about the relationship between men and women in the worship
gathering. The problem centers on head attire in worship. It seems some in Corinth were
attempting to blur the distinction between the sexes in order to symbolize their new status in
Christ. Scholars have long debated the reason why women were choosing to abandon their
126
head coverings. While it may be that Corinthian spiritualists were attempting to blur the
distinction between men and women, it is also possible that women simply wanted to overcome
their traditional secondary status by behaving like men. Whatever the motivation, Paul’s main
concern is order.
Paul begins a new section of the letter dealing with issues related to public worship. In
verse 2, Paul begins with a commendation of praise (ἐπαινέω ), which is remarkable, given
how infrequently he uses the word, especially in a context in which he is addressing very serious
problems. Most interpreters see this verse as an affirmation of the Corinthians that intended to
“placate them so they will be receptive to critical advice.” Rosner and Ciampa maintain, “Paul
127
introduces this text with an affirmation of his praise for the Corinthians; in the following verses
he will clarify how their behavior can and should remain praiseworthy through their obedience to
126
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians
, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2003), 505. It is assumed that the Corinthian women got carried away with their transformed spiritual
status and carried things too far by breaching sexual decorum. They misapplied Paul’s teaching that, in Christ, there
is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28) and they sought to eradicate any conventional male/female distinctions.
127
Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation
(Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1993), 260.
his instructions.” In other words, Paul begins on an encouraging note in order to honor his
128
listeners.
Verse 3 begins with a positive phrase, “I want you to know,” suggesting a new insight.
Paul establishes the premise that everyone has a head in order to set up his argument that what
individuals do to their physical head in worship reflects negatively or positively on their
metaphorical head. The words “man” (ἀνήρ ) and “woman” (γυνή) can also be translated
129
“husband” and “wife.” The mention of a veil, which indicates a woman’s marital status, tells us
that pre-eminent in Paul’s mind would be females who were married. However, since unmarried
women could also pray and prophesy, it’s best to retain the more generic translation, “man and
woman,” not just husbands and wives.
130
Paul’s general concern is orderliness in the service but more specifically head attire that
reflects the orderliness of God and the gospel. However, the meaning of “head” in this passage
(κεφαλή) is complicated. Several interpretations have been put forward. First, “head” can
be understood to designate hierarchy and to imply authoritative headship. Second, “head” can
mean source. Finally, “head” can refer to that which is most prominent, foremost and
pre-eminent. Garland maintains that the final option is to be preferred and can have the following
connotations: (1) “the physical top of an object, such as a mountain or river”; (2) “that which is
extreme, or first”; (3) “that which is prominent or outstanding”; and (4) “that which is
128
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 505.
129
Garland, 1 Corinthians
, 514. Garland further suggests that Paul’s purpose is, “not to write a theology of gender
but to correct an unbefitting practice in worship that will tarnish the church's reputation.” Ibid.
130
Ibid.
determinative or representative by virtue of its prominence.” To Paul’s mind, everyone (except
131
God) has a head, and it is important to understand who your head is. Therefore, it seems that
132
Paul’s primary intent was to claim that both men and women have a head, and that how one
treats their physical head either honors or dishonors their spiritual head.
After introducing the concept of the head and order, Paul applies this concept to praying
and prophesying (vv. 4-5), specifically as it relates to male and female participation in the
gathering (vv. 6-16). In addition to numerous female prophets mentioned in the Old Testament
133
(Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Neh. 6:14; Isa. 8:3), Peter references Joel 2:28 in his
sermon in Acts 2, stating that one of the marks of the last days would be the generous outpouring
of the Spirit on all God’s people, with the result that Israel’s “sons and daughters shall
prophesy.” So Paul’s concern is not with whether men or women will prophesy (he assumes
134
both will) but with the way in which one prophesies. It seems that this text demonstrates that
women participated verbally in the earliest church services. Mounce asserts that this text
“secures a vocal role for women in the public worship service.” Some have contested that Paul
135
is not referring here to the gathered people of God but to private gathering. However, the
contemporary consensus is that Paul is addressing the public gathering of worship. As Garland
points out, “Were it only some private gathering among the family or among only women, their
131
Ibid., 516.
132
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 509.
133
The main question in this paper is not to discuss the meaning of prophecy and prayer in this context, nor is it to
discuss the head covering/hairstyle issue. Rather, is to consider the role of women in the Corinthian church.
134
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 511.
135
William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles
, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Lynn A. Losie, Word Biblical Commentary
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 118.
attire would not have been in consideration.” There is little to suggest that this is a private
136
house-gathering and not the church assembly.
137
It bears repeating that Paul’s main point in these verses is that there are proper and
improper ways of participating in the service. For either men or women to act in a way that
would bring inappropriate shame on themselves or others in worship would be to undermine
God’s intentions for His people and for their worship and would dishonor God Himself.
138
Again, Paul explains in verses 6-16 that the orderliness of creation ought to inform the
orderliness of the worship service. Paul uses the term “shame” (αἰσχρός ) in three verses
(vv. 4-6), indicating that a major concern for Paul in the gathering is respect, or the lack thereof.
First, how one acts in the worship service shows respect for the object of our worship, God.
Second, what is worn serves as a mark of respect for one’s husband or wife. The verses on
mutuality (vv. 7-12) underscore this point. For example, verse 8 states, “For man was not made
from woman, but woman from man,” and verse 12 shows the reciprocal point that, “For as
woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”
These two reciprocal ideas are summed up in verse 11, which asserts, “In the Lord woman is not
independent of man nor man of woman.”
For the purposes of this paper, it cannot be missed that Paul affirms the difference,
complementarity and mutuality of gender in this passage. Paul insists that gender distinction is
more than a matter of mere physiology, and it is more than the result of a social construct. God
created humankind male and female. Therefore, for Paul, the orderliness of creation is important
136
Garland, 1 Corinthians
, 518.
137
C.K. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians
, 2nd ed. (London: Continuum, 1994), 331.
138
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 512.
and should instruct orderliness of church service. As Thiselton points out, “Complementarity and
mutuality in relationships is not an optional issue. It belongs to the very fabric of reality as God
wills it to be.” Additionally, gender distinction and mutuality, as affirmed in this passage,
139
should not lead to a ministry practice of domination or manipulation but a practice that nurtures
mutual respect and honor between both sexes.
1 Corinthians 14:26-40
Nearing the end of his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul again considers the issue of
orderly worship. Since intelligibility of the gospel is essential, how should we proceed in
worship? For Paul, ordered worship should reflect God’s ordered creation and be for the building
up of the community. The clause, “When you come together,” (συνέρχησθε)
140
reiterates that Paul is continuing to discuss proper behavior in the context of the worship
gathering. This is the final occurrence of this verb in this letter (cf. vv. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34;
141
14:23). The emphasis here is on the entire body worshiping together in the gathering. For the
earliest church, their gathering was not a performance to be watched but a service to be
participated in. It was expected that every member of the congregation had a part to play in the
worship service, not just the leaders. Ben Witherington is right to point out, “The impression is
139
Ibid., 178.
140
This purpose of building up the community has cumulatively become a refrain or axiom in 14:3, 5, 12 and 26
(where v. 12 not only uses the identical phrase πρὸς τὴν οἰκοδοµὴν but also adds the implicit τὴς
ἐκκλησίας , which 1 Cor. 3:9 made explicit by describing the congregation as θεοῦ οἰκοδοµὴν ).
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1133.
141
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 709. The verb (συνέρχησθε) means, “to
come together with others as a group.” Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature
, 769.
of a real act of the body, not merely the performance of a noted few.” However, because of its
142
comparatively large size, the Corinthian church was combating disorderliness in its services.
Paul goes on to list the various gifts or ministries that were a part of the gathering. He
says, “Each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.”
Gordon Fee
maintains that these gifts “represent various types of verbal manifestations of the Spirit that
should occur in their assembly.”
This list clearly focuses on gifts of the Spirit that are verbal in
143
their manifestation, not other gifts such as faith, healing, miracles, helping and leadership (cf. vv.
12:9-10, 28), which are not mentioned here. Since God is a God of order, Paul insists that the
church reflect this characteristic by being orderly itself. Worship should always be carried out in
such as way as is consistent with the God of peace and order.
To this end, Paul instructs the Corinthian church to maintain order through the silencing
of certain people. First, those who would speak in tongues when there is no interpreter should
remain silent (v. 28). Second, those who would go on prophesying at the same time should speak
one at a time (vv. 30-31). Third, disruptive women should remain silent and ask their husbands
questions at home (vv. 34-35). This paper will focus solely on Paul’s final admonition of silence
directed toward wives. Rosner and Ciampa maintain, “These verses have created interpretive
difficulties since they were first penned.” One of the primary reasons for this difficulty is that
144
142
Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 285.
143
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 690.
144
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 718. Rosner and Ciampa continue to note, “Some
witnesses transpose these two verses so that they appear after v. 40, leading Fee, Hays, Schrage, and others to
conclude that it is a non-Pauline interpolation. Such scholars think that this text began as a marginal note which was
later introduced into the text at two different places (although mainly following v. 33). Ellis has suggested that it
may have been written in the margin by Paul himself before sending the epistle on its way. With thirty-six words it
would be an extraordinarily long ‘marginal note’! One wonders how it could fit in the margin of an epistolary
papyrus.” However, they further note, “No witness lacks this text, and the arguments in favor of its authenticity are
substantial. The fact that the witnesses that transpose these verses to a later place in this chapter reflect a similar
Paul seems to be directly contradicting his teaching from chapter 11 that women should pray and
prophesy, so long as they maintain proper dignity.
Several solutions to this apparent contradiction have been proposed. First, some have
maintained that Paul’s true feelings about women in the worship service come out in chapter 14,
leading the reader to believe that he never really supported what he said in chapter 11. For the
evangelical reader with a high view of Scripture, this is not a viable option. Second, some have
maintained that these verses are an extended quotation from the letter the Corinthians sent to
Paul, representing their views, to which Paul responds in verse 36. However, verse 36 is not a
sufficient response to the developed viewpoint in verses 34-35. One would expect Paul to give
more explanation of his own position than to the position he opposes, as would be the case if
verses 34-35 were a quotation from the Corinthians. Therefore, this is an unlikely option. Most
other solutions to this perceived tension between chapters 11 and 14 have been to interpret Paul
as barring women from a particular type of speaking. Blomberg notes that it is “implausible that
verses 34-35 are absolute commands silencing women in every way during the Corinthian
worship service.”
145
The verb translated “to remain silent” (σιγάτωσαν) has already been used twice
in this chapter (cf. vv. 28; 30) in reference to the gift of tongues and prophecy when someone
else has a revelation. Therefore, the inclusion of the same verb relating to the silence of women,
or wives, is most likely explained by the fact that Paul had just finished discussing two other
situations (prophecy and speaking in tongues) that called for silence on the part of certain
(Western) textual tradition has led most scholars to conclude that the transposition reflects an attempt ‘to find a more
appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.’” Ibid.
145
Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians
, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 280.
participants in the church’s worship. It should be noted that in the two previous cases Paul is
146
referring to particular instances in the gathering in which they are to remain silent, not at all
times. As Rosner and Ciampa note, “Indeed, Paul is probably thinking of particular instances
where different kinds of participants in the worship meeting should refrain from speaking.”
147
Paul is not excluding these worship participants from all speaking (all were expected to
participate equally) but from a certain kind of speech.
So, what kind of speech is Paul prohibiting? In what way is a woman meant to be
restricted in the gathering? The verb “to speak” (λαλεῖν ) was most recently used to
reference speaking in tongues, so some believe Paul is suggesting that women should not speak
in tongues in church. It is unclear why women would be singled out here, which makes this an
unlikely reading.
Others have suggested that Paul is referring to prophecy because that is the most recent
referent to speech in the chapter. However, this is illogical, given his discussion of it in chapter
11 (which indicates that women may prophesy as long as they do so with their heads covered).
148
A popular solution has been to suggest that what women are restricted from doing is
contributing to the weighing of the prophecy, which was mentioned as recently as verse 29b.
This interpretation is growing amongst contemporary evangelical scholarship and is a plausible
interpretation. Blomberg notes, “An authoritative evaluation of prophecy, while requiring
149
146
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 720.
147
Ibid.
148
Ibid., 721.
149
Thiselton makes this argument, maintaining, “The speaking in question denotes the activity of sifting or weighing
the words of prophets, especially by asking probing questions about the prophet’s theology or even the prophet’s
lifestyle in public. This would become especially sensitive and problematic if wives were cross-examining their
husbands about the speech and conduct which supported or undermined the authenticity of a claim to utter a
prophetic message, and would readily introduce Paul’s allusion to reserving questions of a certain kind for home.”
input from the whole congregation, would ultimately have been the responsibility of the church
leadership.” Additionally, it is possible that Paul is referring to wives who are publicly
150
questioning their husbands’ prophecies and bringing shame and dishonor on them, which is why
they should ask their husbands at home. It certainly would have been awkward in Paul’s world to
have a wife criticizing her husband’s prophecy in public.
So, how might a woman speak in a way as to dishonor her husband? It is impossible to be
definitive. It is possible that they were either asking questions of their husbands in the middle of
the gathering and it was causing distractions, or they were asking other men during the service
rather than asking their own husbands at home. Therefore, Paul is instructing the Corinthian
church to maintain order in their worship services by not allowing women to ask questions in
disrupting ways but to keep the order of the service by asking their husbands at home.
Again, it is difficult to be certain whether Paul is referring to prophecy, the weighing of
prophecy or distracting questions from women/wives. Among these possibilities, and in context
with the rest of the epistle, it is clear that Paul is not completely limiting women from speaking
in the gathering, but he is restricting a certain kind of speech that contributed to disorder in the
congregation. How is this principle that maintained order in first-century Corinthian churches to
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians
, 1158. Grudem also supports this reading as he argues, “Suppose that
some women in Corinth had wanted to evade the force of Paul’s directive. The easy way to do this would be to say,
‘We’ll do just what Paul says. We won’t speak up and criticize prophecies. But surely no one would mind if we
asked a few questions! We just want to learn more about what these prophets are saying.’ Then such questioning
could be used as a platform for expressing in a none-too-veiled form the very criticisms Paul forbids. Paul
anticipates this possible evasion.…” Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 253. For a few examples see, D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological
Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 129–31; James B. Hurley, Man and
Woman in Biblical Perspective: A Study in Role Relationships and Authority
(Zondervan, 1981), 185–94. For a
critique of this view see, J. Greenbury, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy Revisited,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society
51 (2008): 721–31.
150
Blomberg, 1 Corinthians
, 281.
be applied today? The principles underlying Paul’s exhortation may well call for a different set
of concrete behaviors in our churches than would have been expected in first-century Corinth.
151
We believe that there is a theological principle in this text that suggests that Christians should
avoid the kind of speech that leads to disorder. However, this principle requires contextual and
culturally-specific application. In our society, there is no disgrace for a woman to engage in
public dialogue. There is no longer any shame or disgrace associated with such engagement. In
fact, as Rosner and Ciampa maintain, “It would be considered shameful for a woman to be
restricted from open participation in public conversations.”
Garland concludes that “Paul’s
152
instructions are conditioned by the social realities of his age and a desire to prevent a serious
breach in decorum” and that he “may fear that the Christian community would be ‘mistaken for
one of the orgiastic, secret, oriental cults that undermined public order and decency.’”
153
Therefore, in applying such a text to other contexts and cultures, we must be aware of the extent
to which Paul and other biblical authors are sensitive to the social norms of proper decorum in
the places where they ministered.
154
1 Timothy 2:11-15
One of the most frequently cited and debated passages concerning the role of women in
the Church is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This text is the most frequently discussed passage in the
155
151
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 729.
152
Ibid.
153
Garland, 1 Corinthians
, 673.
154
Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians
, 729–30.
155
For a helpful study on textual and cultural background of 1 Timothy, see S.M. Baugh, “A Foreign World:
Ephesus in the First Century,” in Women in the Church
, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 25–64.
entire corpus of the pastoral epistles. Ryken notes, “When it comes to understanding biblical
156
teaching about the role of women in the church, there seems to be danger on every side.”
He
157
articulates several of these challenges as: (1) the danger of controversy, (2) the danger of letting
culture overrule Scripture, (3) the danger of allowing Church history to dictate how Scripture
should be applied, (4) the danger of allowing personal opinion to distort our understanding of
Scripture and (5) the difficulties with the text itself. Schreiner is correct to observe that “scholars
debate virtually every word.” Put simply, the passage defies simple answers.
158 159
The passage begins in verse 11 with a positive command: “Let a woman learn quietly
with all submissiveness.” With this statement, “let a woman learn” (µανθανέτω ), Paul
160
shatters ancient stereotypes. In the Roman world, women were thought to be intellectually
second-class. It was widely accepted that females were mentally inferior to their male
156
It should not be overlooked that this letter was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus, a city
well-known for its temple to Artemis. This temple-cult worshiped a female deity, and all the priests were women.
So, Paul is writing a letter to a city that had reorganized gender roles and he insists on a distinctly Christian
framework based upon the created order. For recent work that has been done on the cultural background of this
epistle, see Sandra Glahn, “The Identity of Artemis in First-Century Ephesus,” Bibliotheca Sacra
172 (September
2015): 316–34; Sandra Glahn, “The First-Century Ephesian Artemis: Ramifications of Her Identity,” Bibliotheca
Sacra
, December 2015, 450–69.
157
Philip Graham Ryken, 1 Timothy
(Phillipsburg, N.J: P&R Publishing, 2007), 87.
158
Thomas R. Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church
, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway,
2016), 184.
159
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 87–88. Ryken further notes, “In the face of these dangers and difficulties, the only way to
proceed is to recognize that we bring assumptions to this passage, asking the Holy Spirit to correct those
assumptions as necessary and working through the passage as carefully as possible." Ibid.
160
It should be noted that these verses are best understood in the passage 8-15 as a whole. It is at this point that Paul
engages the congregation according to gender groups. He is adapting a household code and appropriating it to the
church. He speaks authoritatively to the men instructing them about community and prayer and to the women about
modesty. First, in Greek the term “man” (ἀνήρ ) is ambiguous and could mean “husbands” or “men.” Typically, a
modifying possessive pronoun would indicate “husband” (e.g., 3:2, 12; 5:9; Titus 1:6; 2:5; Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1), or
context will specify the meaning. The absence of this signal could support the more generic reference, but the
context suggests that the husband/wife relationship could also be in view. The same problem presents itself with the
term for “woman” or “wife” (γυνή). It is impossible to be positive one way or the other. Cf. Philip H. Towner,
The Letters to Timothy and Titus
, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006), 201.
counterparts. Schreiner contends, “Scholars have often pointed out that this injunction represents
an advance over some traditions in Judaism that forbade women from learning.” Thus, in this
161
context, most learning systems were designed for men, not women. Educating women was not
162
a priority and was even regarded as undesirable by many. Here, we see Paul saying nearly the
exact opposite. His positive prohibition, “let a woman learn,” (µανθανέτω) is actually a
great liberation. Baugh correctly notes, “Paul positively opens to all women the road to
163
learning by enjoining them to learn in the church.” Often, this passage is used to demonstrate
164
Paul’s negative attitude toward women and the New Testament’s social condition of patriarchal
attitudes toward gender. This text actually seems to demonstrate the opposite. Ryken maintains,
“It is not too much to say that one burden of [Paul’s] ministry is to ensure that the gifts of women
are used to their fullest extent.” Lea and Griffin helpfully point out,
165
Paul’s command that the women “learn” reflects Christian practice which differed
from the customs of Judaism. Judaism would enforce physical silence on women
without concern for their growth in knowledge. At this point Paul was not
borrowing from his Jewish heritage but was reflecting as a Christian a greater
appreciation for the role of women in spreading the gospel. Paul’s commands
encourage the women to give attention to God’s message in order to learn the
essentials for Christian growth and development.
166
It is correct to point out that Paul is directly contrasting segments of Judaism that prohibited
women from learning. For example, consider the phrase, “Better to burn the Torah than to teach
161
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 184. Schreiner is also right to point out that the main thrust of the
passage is not their learning but the manner in which they learn. Ibid., 185.
162
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 89.
163
This term can be defined as “to gain knowledge or skill by instruction.”
164
Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” 62.
165
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 89.
166
Thomas Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy
Scripture
(Nashville: B&H Academic, 1992), 98.
it to a woman.” The Christian tradition does not reflect this Jewish practice as it follows the
167
way of Christ, who taught Mary as she sat at His feet in the posture of a student listening to
everything He said (Luke 10:39). Scripture teaches that women are made in the image of God
168
and have been called to be disciples of Christ, which requires learning. Women have the
responsibility before God to be students of His Word. Biblical literacy, then, is of extreme
importance for both men and women, and the Church is the primary place that the Spirit shapes
all of Christ’s followers, men and women, into the image of Christ through the teaching,
preaching and reading of Scripture.
Further, Paul teaches that women should learn in a posture of quietness (ἡσυχίᾳ ) and
submission (ὑποταγῇ ). First, Paul says that women should learn quietly (ἡσυχίᾳ ).
Some scholars have incorrectly interpreted this adverb to be indicating complete silence.
However, it is better to interpret this word as exhorting a disposition of quietness (ἡσυχίᾳ )
while they are learning. This passage is calling women to learn in a disposition of gentleness.
169
Lea and Griffin assert, “Paul was not demanding physical silence but a teachable spirit.” This
170
term must be understood against the backdrop of the Ephesian women. Some Ephesian women
were characterized as idlers, gossiping and foolish talkers, and in general being busybodies (1
Tim. 5:13). Mounce notes that the Ephesian women “were anything but quiet.” This same
171
167
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
3:4,19a
168
“Mary learned in the rabbinic style,” notes Ryken, “she kept her place; she was listening rather than talking; and
she was sitting at Jesus’ feet, which was the place of submission to teaching authority. In other words, as Mary sat in
the seminary of Christ, she ‘learned quietly and with all submissiveness.’” Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 91.
169
This term is defined as “a state of quietness without disturbance.” Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 440.
170
Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus
, 99.
171
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles
, 118. Evidently the lack of constraint, also characteristic of the Corinthian church, was
a problem at Ephesus.
word is used earlier in the chapter, where Paul encourages all Christians to lead “a peaceful and
quiet life” (1 Tim. 2:2), which includes men and does not mean literal silence. If Paul wanted to
communicate absolute silence, he could have used the noun (σιγὴ ). Instead he uses a word
172
that characterizes a gentle and teachable demeanor.
Second, women are called to learn with submissiveness (ὑποταγῇ· ). The related
173
verb is used through the New Testament to describe the submission of Christians to God the
Father (Heb. 12:9; Jas. 4:7), of everything to Christ (Eph. 2:22; Phil. 3:21), Christians submitting
to one another (Eph. 5:21), submission to authority (1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Pet. 5:5; Rom. 13:1, 5; 1
Tim. 3:4; Titus 2:9; 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:18) and wives to husbands (Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21-22; Titus 2:5; 1
Pet. 3:1, 5). Knight asserts, “Here submission is, more broadly, the norm for the relationship of
174
women to men in authority functions within the church.” This means that the women were
175
meant to receive the word that is taught with cheerful agreement, as would be true with men in
the congregation as well. Paul is establishing a Christian climate for learning. He is simply
clarifying that women, now welcomed to the learning environment, should inhabit it in the
manner of a student—in quietness and submission.
It is also important to note that Paul qualifies his comments about submission by using
the term “all” (πάσῃ ), meaning full submission. Ryken insightfully points out that this is the
176
172
Cf. Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 186.
173
This term is defined as “the state of submissiveness, subjection, subordination.” Bauer and Danker, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 1041. Cf. (2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 2:5;
1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4)
174
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999), 139.
175
Ibid.
176
This qualification likely has an elative sense, meaning “with entire submissiveness.” Schreiner, “A Dialogue with
Scholarship,” 187.
only kind of submission there is. However, a question remains: Who are they to be submissive
177
to? Are they submitting to God, to men, the congregation, sound doctrine or their teachers?
178
Schreiner provides help in answering this question by noting, “The submission of all women to
all men is not in view, for not all men taught and had authority when the church gathered.” He
further argues, “Thus, we should not separate submission to what is taught from submission to
those who taught it. Women were to learn from those men (pastors and elders) who had authority
in the church and manifested that authority through their teaching.” It is a wonderful and
179
beautiful thing to submit to a godly, God-ordained authority. Perhaps this is most clearly seen as
the Son, in the incarnation, submits to the Father, despite His ontological equality, even unto
death (Phil. 2:1-11). Thus, when women submit to their husbands and to the elders of a church,
they imitate the way of Jesus. A key to the passage, therefore, is that Paul is commanding that
women must be allowed to learn and study with quietness and submission and should not be
restrained from doing so, but they are not to learn in order to overthrow the basic created order,
which Paul addresses next.
Paul is not interested in educating the women so that they can become the leaders of the
church, like the temple priestesses of Artemis, who reverse the created order. The exhortation
180
177
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 92.
178
Sometimes this is taken to mean that the women are to be in full submission to the men in the congregation, but
there is no exegetical warrant for such a reading.
179
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 187. Schreiner comes to this conclusion in part because of the
parallels between verses 11 and 12. Verses 11 and 12 constitute an inclusio.
Verse 11 begins with “quietly,” and
verse 12 concludes with “quietly.” The permission for women to “learn” is contrasted with the proscription for them
to “teach,” while “all submissiveness” is paired with “not to exercise authority over a man.” The submission in view,
then, is likely to men, since verse 12 bans women from exercising authority over men. Yet the context of verse 12
suggests that submission to all men is not in view but to those who function as elders.
180
Again, the context and occasion for writing this letter must be noted. Paul is denying that the women learn
doctrine in order to become the religious leaders as they did in the temple-cult in Ephesus, but so that they can be
faithful members of the congregation.
to learn is followed by the statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority
over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12). Even more than 1 Corinthians
14:24-35, the social setting of teaching and learning in the gathering is definitive. Philip
181
Towner agrees, maintaining, “From 2:1 onward Paul has been preoccupied with activities and
behavior within the worship assembly.”
182
A conjunction (δὲ ) is used to indicate a contrast—that women are to learn, but they do
not teach. The first word in the Greek text of verse 12 is “to teach” (διδάσκειν).
183
Ryken argues that this word has a specific function in the Pastoral Epistles, where “it refers to
the exposition of Scripture in the official teaching of sound doctrine—the fundamentals of the
faith (1 Tim. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:2).” Just as verse 11 was not a demand for all learning to be done
184
in silence, as an unqualified absolute, but was concerned with women’s learning in the midst of
the assembled people of God, so also the prohibition of teaching here has the same setting and
perspective in view. It is important to note that it cannot be a blanket prohibition on women
185
teaching anyone. Women are clearly called to participate as teachers in the Great Commission,
and older women are to train younger women (Titus 2:3-4). Timothy has the same faith as his
mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, taught
181
Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy
(New York: Yale University Press, 2001), 206.
182
Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus
, 190. Towner goes on to show how there has been confusion in some
scholarship between what was public and the gathering. He argues, “Christian worship, carried out in the reception
room or atrium of a house, was essentially a public activity… The point is this: the activities that combined to form
a Christian worship meeting working essentially public and it is precisely the public nature of these activities
addressed in 2:8-15 and the reactions of observing outsiders that concerned Paul.” Ibid., 191.
183
This word simply means to teach or to instruct someone else. Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 241.
184
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 95. Therefore, in this view, women should be excluded from preaching in the gathering.
185
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 140–41.
Apollos (Acts 18:26). Believers are to teach each other (Col. 3:16). So, it is not teaching in
186
general, something women are often commended and encouraged to do, but a specific kind of
teaching. Schreiner argues that the teaching in view is “the authoritative and public transmission
of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 3:16;
Jas. 3:1).” Who does teach this way? Schreiner maintains that this is typically “a function of
187
the elders/overseers (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17), and it is likely that Paul is thinking of them here.”
188
Mounce asserts, “The idea of a woman being submissive to all men is foreign to Paul's teaching,
it is more likely that he means they are to be submissive to a certain group of men.” Therefore,
189
it is likely that Paul has in mind that women submit to the faithful teaching of the gospel, the
apostolic tradition, which is taught and maintained by the elders. It is also worthwhile to note
that most men are forbidden from this kind of ministry, as well. This verse does not mean that all
men teach women or that no women teach men.
Paul’s prohibition of women teaching would prevent them from serving as elders
or ministers, but it is unwarranted to limit it to such a restriction from
office-bearing. Paul uses functional language (“to teach”) rather than office
language (“a bishop”) to express the prohibition. Here he prohibits women from
publicly teaching men, and thus teaching the church.
190
Thus, the office or function of publicly teaching the gathering of the church is reserved for
certain men—elders—or at least qualified men. This is an important point because what Paul
191
186
Cf. Robert L. Saucy, “Women’s Prohibition to Teach Men: An Investigation into Its Meaning and Contemporary
Application,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
37 (1994): 79–79.
187
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 190.
188
Ibid., 192. Schreiner also notes that “elders in particular are to labor in teaching (1 Tim. 5:17) so that they can
refute the false teachers who advance heresy (1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 4:1; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9, 11).” Ibid., 191.
189
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles
, 124.
190
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 141.
191
A qualified man is a man who has been trained, has been vetted and meets all of the specific qualifications of an
elder at The Village Church. However, not all qualified men hold the office of elder. There are men on staff and in
the congregation who meet the qualifications of elder but do not hold the office. Though they are not currently in the
is not doing is prohibiting women from teaching men in any scenario. This not only goes against
a biblical command (Col. 3:16), but it also goes against the biblical example. Furthermore,
192
Knight notes, “This prohibition does not relate to every aspect of the gathered assembly (praying,
prophesying, singing; cf. 1 Cor. 11:5), but specifically in respect to that which is contrasted,
teaching and authority.”
193
This text is certainly prohibiting women from a certain kind of authoritative proclamation
of God's Word. Perhaps further insight can be gained by considering the term “exercise
authority” (αὐθεντεῖν ). The verb translated “authority” (αὐθεντεῖν ) is very
194
difficult to translate. This term is a hapax legomenon
, meaning this is the only time it appears
195
in the New Testament. Several interpreters suggest a translation such as “to usurp authority” or
to “domineer” because they believed that the word should be understood as having a pejorative
connotation. However, more recent studies suggest the term should simply mean to “have or
196
office of elder (and may never be), we believe these men are trustworthy to teach the Word of God at The Village. A
man who does not meet the qualifications of elder does not meet the requirements of being a qualified man. If a
non-elder has been vetted and trained and meets the qualifications of elder, we do not want to restrict his ability to
teach and preach at The Village by restricting preaching/teaching to only those who hold the office of elder.
192
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 94. The Bible gives us numerous examples when Christian men learned from Christian
women.
193
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 142.
194
For an in-depth chapter on the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν see, Al Wolters, “The Meaning of
αὐθεντεῖν ,” in Women in the Church
, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 65–116.
195
A helpful gloss for the word is “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.” Bauer and
Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 150.
196
For a helpful analysis of these translations see Andreas J. Kostenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1
Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995),
81–103.
exercise authority.” Scholars are in broad agreement that αὐθεντεω is derived from
197
the noun αὐθεντῇς .
There has also been a great deal of conversation about the relationship between “to teach”
(διδάσκειν) and “to exercise authority” (αὐθεντεῖν ), which centers on the
use of the conjunction (οὐδὲ ). Some have argued that the prohibitions are a hendiadys
, which
uses two different terms to denote one concept. Others believe Paul is referring to two separate
198
concepts, namely teaching and exercising authority, primarily because these terms are separated
by five Greek words. Usually a hendiadys is side-by-side in sentence construction, making it
more likely that in this case Paul is prohibiting two separate things. The strongest evangelical
199
scholarship seems to agree that Paul is referring to two separate concepts—teaching and acting in
authority. Whether Paul has one thing in mind or two things in mind is not of extreme
importance for this paper, because both are intimately related. Additionally, whether it refers to
one or two things is of less importance than asking the question, “Who is it who teaches and
exercises authority?” As Schreiner maintains, “It is most likely that Paul is referring to
elder/overseer.” Put simply, Paul wants certain positions of authority in the Church to be
200
reserved for elders; teaching is one way in which authority is clearly exercised in the Church.
201
Paul is referring, then, not necessarily to the office of elder, but to the function and role of
197
Wolters, “The Meaning of αὐθεντεῖν .” Wolters maintains that it is very unlikely to have either a
pejorative or an ingressive meaning, but rather through a study of cognates, context and ancient commentary, this
word is meant to be understood in a positive or neutral sense.
198
Cf. Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).
199
Kostenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12.”
200
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 193.
201
This teaching and authority is not related to ontological hierarchy between men and women but to
complementarity and specifically to an ecclesiastical office.
pastors and elders (ἐπίσκοπος /πρεσβύτερος). Schreiner argues, “Women
202
should not arrogate an official teaching role for themselves and serve as elders/pastors/overseers.
They should learn submissively and quietly from elders instead.”
203
It is essential to note that Paul grounds his prohibition in the created order: “For Adam
was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). Paul appeals to the second creation account (Gen.
2:4-25), which records that Adam was created before Eve. The Bible’s rationale is not simply
based on Hellenistic culture, the context of Asia Minor or even on the particulars of the Ephesian
church. Rather, Paul’s exhortation is rooted in the creation of the world:
For Adam was formed
first, then Eve. What must be noted in this text is that a difference in role or function in no way
implies that women are inferior to men. In fact, Genesis 2 teaches the exact opposite: that men
204
and women share in common their image bearing, something that can be said about no other part
of creation. Nonetheless, Knight is correct to assert, “The strength of the prohibition here is
underlined by Paul’s appeal to the creation order.” Put simply, Paul’s reading of Genesis 2
205
leads him to believe that in Eden, the order in which God created Adam and Eve signaled an
important difference between men and women.
Therefore, we must bind ourselves not to
206
culture but to creation. Men and women are created absolutely equal but are also distinct in their
sex and role. Paul’s prohibition cannot be rooted simply in the fact that we live in a fallen world.
This verse is not talking about superiority but order. Nothing is said about the superiority of men
202
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 140. Knight further argues, “It is noteworthy, however, that Paul does not use
‘office’ terminology here (bishop/presbyter) but functional terminology (teach/exercise authority). It is thus the
activity that he prohibits, not just the office (cf. again 1 Cor. 14:34, 35).” Ibid.
203
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 224–25.
204
Ibid., 201.
205
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 140.
206
Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” 201.
in this verse or in Scripture. Order is established and maintained through hierarchy, but
207
hierarchy does not assign superiority. Rather, it assigns responsibility and accountability.
Verse 14 is more complex than verse 13, which teaches: “And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Paul’s additional explanation for his
prohibition concerning women teaching in verse 12 relates to the story of the Fall in Genesis 3.
208
This is not meant to deny Adam’s sin or participation in the Fall (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21-22),
but to indicate, as Genesis does, that Adam sinned willfully, not as a result of deception. A
209
proper interpretation hinges upon the word “deceived” (ἠπατήθη ). The point is that
210
Adam was not deceived. Unlike Eve, he knew exactly what he was doing when he ate the
forbidden fruit. In using this word, Paul has in mind Genesis 3:13, where in the LXX Eve uses
211
this word to describe how the serpent misled her. Eve’s deception and sin made her a
“transgressor” (παραβάσει γέγονεν). Both Adam and Eve are equally
212
culpable for the sin in the garden. They cannot be co-heirs if they are not co-offenders.
Even in his discussion of ministry in gender roles, Paul keeps the gospel central because
there is hope for all sinners. Verse 14 ends with the reality of sin, and verse 15 begins with the
hope of salvation. Verse 15 states, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue
in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” Though there are a number of interpretive
207
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 100. Ryken goes on to claim that what Paul is referring to here is primogeniture, in which the
firstborn son held a place of spiritual responsibility in the family. The firstborn became the head of the household.
208
Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus
, 101.
209
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 143.
210
Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
, 98.
211
Ryken, 1 Timothy
, 101.
212
παραβάσει is defined as an act of deviating from an established boundary or norm, overstepping,
transgression. Bauer and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature
, 769.
options for this passage, it is impossible to be completely certain which interpretation is best.
213
The most likely understanding of this verse is that it refers to eschatological salvation through
the birth of the Messiah. This interpretation best accords with the flow of Paul’s argument.
214 215
Paul maintains that Eve (ἡ γυνή ) brought herself into transgression through disobedience to
God’s command. Through obedience, difficult as it may be as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16), she
gives birth to the Messiah, and thereby “she” (ἡ γυνή ) (fulfilled, of course, in Mary; cf. Gal.
4:4) brings salvation into the world. Women bear life, and through a woman, the One who is
216
Life Himself would be born. This interpretation makes sense because of this passage’s
connection with Genesis 3:15, which promises that the offspring of the woman will defeat the
devil. Salvation would not have been possible without the incarnation, life, death, burial and
217
resurrection of the Son of God. Therefore, at the heart of this passage is not just gender roles
218
but the gospel.
213
The primary interpretive challenges are at least threefold. First, the verb “to save” (σωθήσεται) is
capable of meaning physical or spiritual salvation. Second, the preposition linking “childbearing” to “salvation”
(διὰ ) could express the means of salvation or indicate more loosely an accompanying circumstance. Third, in
allusion to Genesis in the term “childbearing” will unavoidably call to mind the curse on the woman and perhaps
other elements of Genesis 3 as well. Determining exactly the relationship between Genesis 3 and this passage is
complex. Cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles
, 234–35.
214
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 146.
215
Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles
, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark International,
2000), 1904. Lock put this verse into a poetic couplet as he argued, “A child from woman’s seed to spring;/ Shall
saving to all women bring.” Ibid., 104.
216
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles
, 146.
217
Although Jesus ultimately defeats the devil on the cross through His burial, resurrection and ascension, these acts
cannot be separated from His incarnation. His life and work are bound up into one salvific act and purpose.
218
On that note, Stott argues, “Even if certain roles are not open to women, and even if they are tempted to resent
their position, they and we must never forget what we owe to women. If Mary had not given birth to the
Christ-child, there would have been no salvation for anybody. No greater honor has ever been given to a woman
than in the calling of Mary to be the mother of the Savior of the world.” John R. W. Stott, Guard the Truth: The
Message of 1 Timothy & Titus
(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1996), 87–88.
Exegetical and Theological Conclusions
Based upon the previous sections of exegesis, we believe it is imperative that we outline
several exegetical and theological conclusions based upon the text. These conclusions are not
meant to be exhaustive as it relates to sexual complementarity, the church, the home or society.
Rather, they function as the foundation of our understanding of the role of women at The Village
Church.
First, both man and woman are created in the image of God and equally charged with the
cultural mandate and the Great Commission. The shared humanity of men and women is greater
than their sexual distinctions. The Bible teaches that God, in His wisdom and providence, created
two complementary sexes for our good and His glory. Men and women are absolutely equal in
essence, dignity and value. The Bible depicts a vision of brothers and sisters laboring alongside
one another in the world and the Church for the sake of the kingdom of God. When we don’t
empower both sexes to engage and use their gifts, in complementarian partnership, the mission
of the Church suffers. In light of this, we expect that the primary relationship between Christian
men and women is that of brotherly and sisterly love. This uniquely Christian disposition
reminds us that we ought to see each other as family in a special sense. Therefore, the primary
relationship in the local church between men and women is the relationship of brothers and
sisters, united in Christ, not subordinates.
Second, equal involvement in the church between men and women does not entail
interchangeable involvement. Though we affirm the absolute equality between men and women,
we believe the Bible places certain restrictions on women in ministry. Therefore, we believe that
certain church responsibilities and roles are reserved for men. Our exegesis leads us to affirm
that the office of and some of the functions of elder/pastor are reserved specifically for qualified
men. Scripture calls elders to oversee the church (1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-2) and preach
the Word (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9).
Affirmations and Denials of The Village Church as a Result of Exegesis
We affirm that both men and women have been created in the image of God and are entitled to
the privileges and held accountable to the responsibilities that come with reflecting our Creator.
We deny that either gender has been given or is entitled to greater dignity in society, the home,
the church or the kingdom of God.
We affirm that both men and women are needed and necessary for the health and ministry of the
church. Godly men and women should be visible partners in the corporate life of the church,
deploying their diverse gifts for the good of the body. Simply put, all Christians contribute to the
ministry of the church.
We deny that the church can flourish without brotherly/sisterly partnership. We deny that a
church can exist in which the men flourish and the women do not, or vice versa.
We affirm that the role/function of elder is reserved for qualified men. Elders are distinctly
responsible for overseeing the church (1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-2) and preaching the
Word (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9).
We deny that the role of elder being withheld from women diminishes their importance or their
influence in the church. The indispensable help women were created to give can and should be
exercised in all manner of roles/offices in the church, excepting those reserved for qualified men.
We affirm that all
members of the church should be in glad submission to the elder body and
that all
should be in glad and sacrificial submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Head of
the Church.
We deny that all
women are subject to the leadership and authority of all
men. Further, biblical
submission is not indicative of subordination or inequality, as seen in the Son’s submission to the
Father (Phil. 2:1-11).
We affirm that complementarianism, rightly practiced, will lead to the recognizable flourishing
of both sexes.
We deny any version of complementarianism or theological position that leads to the
subjugation, abuse or neglect of any man or woman. We strongly denounce any distorted view of
Scripture that contributes to the belief that biblical manhood or womanhood includes or permits
practices such as marginalization, subjugation, intimidation, neglect or any form of abuse.
We affirm that all men and women have been created in the image of God, whether single or
married.
We deny that single men and women must be married to be meaningful participants in the
corporate life of the church. We deny that single men possess any authority over single women.
The way that they love and serve their sisters should not patronize or victimize, but rather,
should be the fruit of brotherly/sisterly love, and vice versa.
Practical Implications: Women in Ministry at The Village Church
This paper has considered the exegesis of several relevant texts, theological issues and
affirmations/denials, but it is now imperative that this paper lay out a biblical practice of women
in ministry. At The Village Church, we desire to be biblical in every way. We do not want to be
biblical in our confession alone, but also in our practice. This requires serious engagement with
the biblical text, but it also requires wise theological judgments as we move from what the Bible
says to how we live in the world.
We recognize that many will find our position and practice on women in ministry far too
conservative. We also recognize that others will find our position and practice on women in
ministry far too progressive. We ask for grace and mercy from both as we focus on the primary
task of making disciples of Jesus Christ.
Additionally, we believe it is important to note that a theological confession of
complementarianism does not necessarily result in uniform complementarian practice. We are
eager to work with brothers and sisters and churches who view these issues differently than we
do.
Professional/Organizational
The elders and Executive team, which includes women leaders, have designated the roles of lead
pastor, campus pastor and Spiritual Formation pastor as reserved for elders/pastors/qualified
men. The elders vet men for these roles and positions using a formal process. We seek to hire
both men and women for every other role, for the health of the church within the framework
outlined below. This gives both men and women opportunities to advance and grow in leadership
and includes women participating in every level of the organization (except for the role of
elder/pastor/qualified man).
The Gathering
Every member of the church body actively participates in our weekend worship services, not just
those who are on the platform. Every role is open to both men and women, except the roles of
preaching the Word of God and officiating the ordinances (baptism/the Lord’s Supper). Every
member is invited to baptize and distribute the elements of communion, but the roles of
preaching and officiating the ordinances are reserved for elders/pastors/qualified men.
Teaching Environments in the Institute, High School Ministry, Steps and Recovery Groups
Mixed-gender teaching environments are overseen by elders and will be led by qualified men.
These men should seek out, equip and utilize gifted men and women to help lead, teach and
shape these ministries. Gender-specific teaching environments are taught by a leader of the same
gender. Men teach men’s environments, and women teach women’s environments.
Groups: Within Home Groups, Institute Cohorts, Student Ministry, Steps and Recovery
Groups
Gender-specific groups are led by a leader of the same gender. Men lead men’s groups, and
women lead women’s groups. Mixed-gender groups are led by both a man and woman. In
mixed-gender group leadership we expect for there to be a co-discipleship relationship between
the man and the woman. Co-discipleship in the group doesn’t mean that male and female leaders
are interchangeable or lead in the exact same way, but as co-disciplers, the man and the woman
operate in their roles according to gifting. Both men and women may serve as group coaches,
group ministers and group leaders.
Bibliography
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical
Theology
. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009.
———. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch
. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2012.
———. “Seed.” Edited by Brian S. Rosner, T. Desmond Alexander, D. A. Carson, and Graeme
Goldsworthy. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.
Atkinson, David J. The Message of Genesis 1--11
. Downers Grove: IVP, 1990.
Barrett, C.K. First Epistle to the Corinthians
. 2nd ed. London: Continuum, 1994.
Bartholomew, Craig G., and Michael W. Goheen. The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in
the Biblical Story
. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.
Bauer, Walter, and Frederick William Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature
. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2001.
Baugh, S.M. “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century.” In Women in the Church
, 3rd ed.,
25–64. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.
Bavinck, Herman. Our Reasonable Faith
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Beale, G.K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the
New
. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
———. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of
God
. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004.
Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction
. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2013.
Blomberg, Craig L. 1 Corinthians
. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians
. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
Burer, Michael, and Daniel B. Wallace. “Was Junia Really and Apostle? A Re-Examination of
Rom 16.7.” New Testament Studies
47 (2001): 76–78.
Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion
. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol.
1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14
. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.
Cassuto, Umberto. From Adam to Noah: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis I- VI
. 3rd ed.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1961.
Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians
. Pillar New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Cranfield, C.E.B. Romans 9-16
. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004.
Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible
.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9-16
. Vol. 38B. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,
1988.
Ellis, E.E. “Paul and His Co-Workers.” Edited by G.F. Hawthorne and R.P. Martin. Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters
. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. Romans
. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians
. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Glahn, Sandra. “The First-Century Ephesian Artemis: Ramifications of Her Identity.”
Bibliotheca Sacra
, December 2015, 450–69.
———. “The Identity of Artemis in First-Century Ephesus.” Bibliotheca Sacra
172 (September
2015): 316–34.
Gow, M.D. “Fall.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker, W. Dictionary of the Old
Testament: Pentateuch
. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Greenbury, J. “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy Revisited.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society
51 (2008): 721–31.
Grudem, Wayne. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today
. Wheaton: Crossway,
2000.
Gundry, Stanley N., Linda L. Belleville, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, and Thomas R.
Schreiner. Two Views on Women in Ministry
. Edited by James R. Beck. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Series) 1-17
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994.
Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament
. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2000.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective: A Study in Role Relationships and
Authority
. Zondervan, 1981.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy
. New York: Yale University
Press, 2001.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis
. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2008.
Knight III, George W. The Pastoral Epistles
. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward
Gasque. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.
Kostenberger, Andreas J. “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12.” In Women in the
Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15
, 81–103. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Lea, Thomas, and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Theological
Exposition of Holy Scripture
. Nashville: B&H Academic, 1992.
Lints, Richard. Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion
. IVP, 2015.
———. The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology
. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
Lock, Walter. The Pastoral Epistles
. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
International, 2000.
Longman, Tremper. Genesis
. Edited by Scot McKnight. The Story of God Bible Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.
Mathews, Kenneth. The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26
. Nashville: Holman,
1996.
Merrill, Eugene. “Image of God.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
. Downers Grove:
IVP, 2003.
Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation
.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Mounce, Robert. Romans: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture
.
Nashville: Holman, 1995.
Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles
. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Lynn A. Losie. Word
Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.
Payne, Philip Barton. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of
Paul’s Letters
. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis
. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1973.
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1997.
Ryken, Philip Graham. 1 Timothy
. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007.
Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary
. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Saucy, Robert L. “Women’s Prohibition to Teach Men: An Investigation into Its Meaning and
Contemporary Application.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
37 (1994):
79–79.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “A Dialogue with Scholarship.” In Women in the Church
, 3rd ed.,
163–226. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.
———. Romans
. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
———. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments
. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Stott, John R.W. Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus
. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP,
1996.
Swain, Scott R. Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and Its
Interpretation
. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.
Thiselton, Anthony C. I Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary
. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.
———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus
. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Turner, L.A. “Book of Genesis.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker, W.
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Waltke, Bruce K. “Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation.” Westminster Theological Journal
71,
no. 1 (March 1, 2009): 83–95.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and
Thematic Approach
. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007.
Webster, J.B. Holiness
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Wenham, Gordon John. Genesis 1-15
. Edited by John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 1.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1
and 2 Corinthians
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Wolters, Al. “The Meaning of αὐθεντεῖν .” In Women in the Church
, 3rd ed., 65–116.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God
Speaks
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
