02-07-13
A Rebuttal of “This statement on the role women in ministry was adopted as the official statement by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God, August 14-16, 1990.”
By: James Hall
Biblical Rebuttal of Assembly of God Women Preachers as Described in Holy Scripture
The beginning of the paper purports the oft repeated view that apparent success equals God’s approval. According to this premise, if God is in the mix, then we can expect strong numerical growth along with great financial prosperity. I cite, from the article, statements such as:
- “From the earliest days of our organization, spiritual gifting has been evident in the ministries of many outstanding women.”
- “Divine enablement has been seen in the spiritual leadership of women in many other Pentecostal groups.”
- “The history and current practice of the Assemblies of God give demonstration that God can and does bless the public ministry of women.”
Of course it is readily apparent that such reasoning has no basis in Scripture and no place in the church. If our gauge for success is based on numeric, financial, emotional, or even presumed supernatural considerations, then we are forced to consider Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam as divinely ordered religions. In fact, based on the premise that success is an indication of God’s approval, we must presume that false preachers such as Sun Myung Moon were powerfully anointed men of God, while A. W. Tozer, who ministered to only a fraction of the numbers, was nothing more than a spiritual lightweight. Of course, in reality the opposite is true. More times than not, especially in this evil day, the false far outperforms the genuine.
The article goes on to say, “We all agree that Scripture must be our final authority in settling questions of faith and practice.” Of course that is correct, but as such it renders the prior statements null and void. As if attempting to deflect from what was just said, the article continues, “But when born-again, Spirit-filled Christians, following proper hermeneutical principles, come to reasonable but differing interpretations, we do well not to become dogmatic in support of one position.” Yet, that dogma is the very reason why there seems to be an endless number of denominations. Speaking solely of Pentecostal organizations, we would have to conclude that if the above statement was true and people did not become ‘dogmatic of one position’ there would be no divisions within Pentecostalism. It is because of those very dogmas that we have the Assemblies of God, Church of God, Church of God of Prophecy, Pentecostal Holiness, etc…
“We also exercise caution in giving authoritative importance to interpretations that do not have indisputable support from the whole of Scripture.” That seems reasonable until you weigh it against such Assemblies of God supported doctrines as; speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Unlike the subject of the roles of women in ministry, this doctrine, which enjoys near universal acceptance within the Assemblies of God, has absolutely no basis in Scripture. It was contrived solely on a partial pattern in one book of the Bible (Acts) and lacks even a single direct mandate from Scripture. Whereas with the subject of women in ministry, there is as absolute consensus of Scripture, a 100% pattern, as well as a direct mandate. More on that later.
What I would label the most disturbing quotation from his article comes next. “Although the Holy Spirit may be active in the work of translation and interpretation, we cannot claim inerrancy for interpretations (even of extant Hebrew or Greek texts)” In other words, we cannot be sure of the Bible we are reading or even the ancient text by which our Bibles originated! If that’s the case, any doctrine that man refuses to acknowledge can be summarily rejected as a translational error because we can claim no inerrancy. If this statement is true, and we can’t rely on the extant Hebrew or Greek text, we have Word of God. That a Biblical scholar, teacher, professor, or preacher, of a major Evangelical denomination would make such a statement is utterly terrifying!
It makes no sense to believe that the Holy Spirit supernaturally anointed men of God to write the Holy Scriptures, but refrained from giving later Men of God the same anointing to interpret those Scriptures. In fact, virtually everything we have today in any language is a translation.
Note: We have precious few actual original texts. Under divine warning of the coming persecution, the early church fathers made several letter perfect copies of the original texts and hid them in the mountains and caverns around Jerusalem. As feared, the originals fell into the hands of what would later become the Catholic Church and were destroyed or severely altered.
Historical and Global Precedent
“In the early days of most revivals, when spiritual fervor is high and the Lord’s return is expected at any time, there is often a place for, and acceptance of, the anointed ministry of women. Over time, however, concerns about organization and lines of authority begin to emerge, and the group moves toward a more structured ministry. As institutional concerns come to the forefront, the spiritual leadership of women is accepted less readily, and church leadership becomes predominately male.”
A simple study of genuine historical revivals will quickly reveal that nearly the opposite of these statements is true. Before the Second Great Awakening in the last of the 1700s and early 1800s, there was virtually no example of female leadership in any true revival setting. Aside from a very few and obscure exceptions, women in pulpit ministry were non-existent. Of these few exceptions, none were widely accepted by the general church due to the overt defiance of Scripture.
The Second Great Awakening, under the primary leadership of Charles Finney, brought women to the forefront and afforded them some opportunities behind the pulpit. At one time there were as many as 100 female itinerate preachers traveling throughout America. Despite this a very small percentage of the churches involved in the revival allowed women in the pulpit. Nearly all of the actual leaders of the movement are objectively recognized as all male.
What opened the door to such a dramatic shift in opinion on this subject? Prior to the Second Great Awakening genuine revivals always focused on the truth of Scripture empowered by the Holy Spirit to bring about renewal and awakening. The Second Great Awakening was the first major “revival” to which Scripture was relegated to a secondary position to experiential considerations. Where previous revivalists scoured the Word for truth, bathed their lives in prayer, and allowed the Holy Spirit to empower them for service. The preachers of the Second Great Awakening regarded experiential manifestations as supreme. Rather than expecting anointed truth from the Word of God, they came to the meetings seeking the next vision, dream, or apparition. If the manifestation happened to conflict with the truth of Scripture, the experience won out.
Contrary to what the article claims, from this time the shift was never away from egalitarianism but rather toward it. Finney’s teachings, though weak on theology, gained very wide acceptance and his favor of women preachers continued to spread. But even so, the genuine revivals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the ones that held Scripture above sensationalism, followed strongly the Biblical standard of male leadership and men in the pulpit.
Much more could be said concerning this subtopic but I will move on.
Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Miriam
“Miriam was a prophet, one of the triumvirate of leaders God sent to Israel during the Exodus period.”
Let’s see what Scripture says about Miriam but first take a moment to consider this passage:
Titus 2: 3 “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Now this passage:
Exodus 15: 20 “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”
What we see is very clear consistency in regard to what Scripture teaches throughout concerning the role of women in ministry. Women teaching women.
Before I go on, let me take a moment to offer a definition. One of the great errors, and one I believe came from purposeful deception on the part of the egalitarians, is modern tendency for teachers, theologians, and preachers, to teach that the Biblical word for Prophetess simply means a female prophet. Although this premise is utterly false, the error has gained such momentum that even Webster’s Dictionary fell prey.
Here are the facts. The Hebrew word, nĕbiy’ah, which is translated in the Old Testament as Prophetess is defines as:
1). The wife of a prophet. The wife of a bishop or presbyter.
2). A poetess. Often used to describe a woman who wrote or performed songs.
Some say it was defined as a woman gifted with the ability to predict.
So, what afforded Miriam the title of prophetess? History tells us that she was the wife of Hur, the man who assisted Aaron in holding up the arms of Moses during the battle against Amalek. Whether he was considered a prophet, we don’t know but it is far more reasonable to believe in his prophetic calling than hers. Also, she performed (and likely wrote) songs. Simply the fact that she led women in song and dance would denote her as a prophetess by Biblical standards.
Here’s what we know she didn’t do:
- She was not a spokesman for God or Moses.
- Her gift of prophecy was used only outside the tabernacle and apparently only in the presence of other women.
- Miriam’s mouth was never used by God to preach the Law or the Ordinances: to convert, educate, instruct, or counsel any of the men of Israel.
- Her gift of prophecy was not an excuse to usurp authority over the Tabernacle.
Deborah
“Deborah, as prophet and judge, led the army of the Lord into successful combat.”
This is a terribly troubling statement from this article as it is so patently and irrefutably false. That such an erroneous position was accepted within pages of an official document of the Assemblies of God is disturbing.
I’ll start with what Scripture actually says and then clarify some other facts about Deborah.
First, who did God call?
Judges 4: 6 And she sent and called Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded [you]…
And then, what actually happened?
Judges 4:10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him…
12 And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor…
14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
The facts are irrefutable. Deborah went up to Mt. Tabor with Barak but Barak, not Deborah, went into battle. She was still on the mountain and was nowhere near the fighting. As Scripture makes clear, Sisera was delivered into Barak’s hand (through Jael), not Deborah’s.
Let me remind you of my quote from the article: “Deborah, as prophet and judge, led the army of the Lord into successful combat.”
So, is this true? What does Scripture say concerning the subject?
Judges 5:15 And the Lord confused and terrified Sisera and all his chariot drivers and all his army before Barak with the sword. 16 But Barak pursued after the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoiim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left.
Judges 6:12 Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.
1 Samuel 12: 11 And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel, and He delivered you out of the hands of your enemies on every side, and you dwelt safely.
After the battle we see Deborah doing what prophetesses do; she sang a song that she apparently wrote, possibly along with Barak.
5 Then sang Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam on that day, saying…
By writing and/or performing songs, which I’m sure this was not the first, she’d earned herself the title of prophetess. As is clear from Scriptural text, Deborah sang the song and Barak led away HIS captives.
Obviously it is disingenuous for a student of Scripture to claim that Deborah was a military leader or that she led the forces into battle. But it is just as inaccurate to pigeonhole her into the role of a priest or religious leader. What was she? The Bible makes that abundantly clear.
Judges 5:7 The villages were unoccupied and rulers ceased in Israel until you arose—you, Deborah, arose—a mother in Israel.
I can think of no time in Scripture where any kind of religious or military leader was described in such a way. What we know from the context of Scripture and history is that Deborah filled a civil position. As such she advised and counseled people and spoke of the things of the Lord. She was a woman full of love for the Lord and her people. People sought her out as “a mother in Israel” for advice and direction. When the men, such as Barak, despaired, she rose up and put a fire under him so to speak.
What else do we know about Deborah?
She held no position in the tabernacle. She did not preach in her civil position as judge. She described her work as “mother”, not priestess.
We also know that following the defeat of Sisera the nation of Israel fell into terrible sin. We also know that it was Barak, not Deborah who found place in the Hall of Faith-Heb. 11:32. In 1 Samuel 12: 11 it is Barak who is named as the deliverer of Israel. There’s not even a mention of Deborah.
Huldah
“Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the Temple and helped spark the great religious reform in the days of Josiah.”
Approximately 655 years after Deborah we have the story of Huldah. 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chron. 34 tells us that she was a prophetess. The article erroneously titles her a prophet. As stated earlier, the words prophet and prophetess have completely different meanings. She was a prophetess, not a prophet.
What the Scriptural text does not tell us is that Huldah “authenticated the scroll of the Law.” What she did was deliver a message from the Lord. Just as we see done in New Testament churches when God uses a woman to deliver a prophetic utterance. Delivering a message as an oracle of the Lord is nowhere near the same thing as preaching, teaching, or leading a religious organization. It is clear that Huldah didn’t go to the temple and demand recognition as a priest. There is no question that she didn’t hold the office of a prophet. She was a woman “gifted with the ability to predict.” Hence, she was a prophetess. She wasn’t a preacher or a priest.
New Testament
“Tabitha (Dorcas) is called a disciple and had a ministry of helps.”
But she’s never referred to as a preacher, teacher, elder, deacon, prophet, or pastor. The ministry of helps is in no way synonymous with preaching.
“Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied.”
But they didn’t preach. Another fallacy in modern Biblical interpretation is the tendency to use the words prophecy and preach interchangeably. They are not. These two words have completely different meanings and are used in vastly different ways.
Prophecy:
1) to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict
a) to prophesy
b) with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp. to the kingdom of God
c) to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation
d) to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels
1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others
e) to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office
Preach:
1) to be a herald, to officiate as a herald
a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald
b) always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed
2) to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done
3) used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian teachers
Everything from one end of Scripture to the other make it clear that a woman can fulfill most of the elements within the framework of prophesy but she can’t fulfill the elements of the framework of preach.
Even the historical writer, Polycretes mentions that Philip and his daughters worked with Polycarp but no mention is made of the daughters preaching. There are many Biblical and extra-Biblical references to Philip preaching.
“Eudoia and Syntyche were Paul’s coworkers who shared in his struggle to spread the gospel.”
No argument, but they didn’t operate outside of the Biblical standard for women. They didn’t preach, teach men, etc… When Scripture identifies these wonderful ladies as ‘coworkers’ elevating them to the position of preacher, pastor, elder, etc… is not supported in Scripture.
“Priscialla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus.”
Who worked as a helper to her husband. There is no indication whatsoever that she ever went outside of that role.
“In Romans 16, Paul greets a multitude of ministering persons, a large number of them women.”
This, as with all the New Testament arguments posed here, is nothing more than a smoke screen. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Of course they ministered. But to say that a person ministered is a far cry from claiming that they preached.
“Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul. Unfortunately, biases of modern English translators have sometimes obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” or “helper”, etc. Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea.”
Out of all of the myriad of errors of this article, I find this one among the most troubling. To denigrate, not only the “modern” translators, but virtually every reputable translator, modern or ancient is the height presumption. In fact, I have yet to find any besides the most liberal and discredited of versions that subscribes to this “theologian’s” misguided rendering.
Here’s the actual translation of diakonos:
- one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
- the servant of a king
- a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
- a waiter, one who serves food and drink
The word, diakonos actually comes from the root word, diako, which means to run errands.
The direct Greek translation of diakonos is:
- One who executes the commands of another, esp. a master: a servant, attendant, minister.
- Those who advance others’ interests even at the sacrifice of their own.
- One who promotes the welfare and prosperity of the church.
- One who, by virtue of the office assigned him by the church, cares for the poor, and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use.
- A woman to whom the care of either poor or sick women was entrusted.
“Paul often used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry.”
This is a patently false statement. At no time is diakonos used in such a way.In every instance in Scripture, including the reference to Christ, the contextual usage of the word fits exactly with its true meaning. It never denotes a “minister or leader of a congregation”. Rather it always denotes a servant. Jesus, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and Paul, were all leaders but they were also diakonos, servants. When describing these men, diakonos is only used when highlighting their servanthood, never their leadership of a congregation.
It is routinely believed by virtually all conservative theologians and Biblical translators that Phoebe was a widow who, because of having no surviving family, was a ward of the church. In that capacity she worked as a servant. She worked diligently to minister to the poor, sick, and needy. It is much more reasonable to believe that she fulfilled clear Biblical mandate as a teacher of the younger women than it is to attempt to elevate her role to that of a preacher. It makes no sense to morph her work to a position that Scripture doesn’t, that the Word of God clearly forbids her to hold, and that would make her the only example of which in all of the Bible.
The writer of the article refers to scores of translators as biased while, in reality, it’s quite clear where the bias lies.
“Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle.”
Another inexcusably dishonest statement. What the Scripture says (Romans 16:7) is that she was “of note among the apostles.”
The Strongs Lexicon identifies this person as:
Junia = “youthful”
1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoner.
Not an apostle. The message of the text is clear. Junia was of note among the apostles. That’s a far cry from being an apostle.
The Greek word for note is episemos which means:
1) having a mark on it, marked, stamped, coined
2) marked
a) in a good sense
1) of note, illustrious
b) in a bad sense
1) notorious, infamous
In fact episemos is the same word used in Matt 27:16 to describe Barabbas as a “notable” prisoner.
To disparage the overwhelming bulk of Biblical translators in order to advance an agenda is inexcusable.
King James Version: “of note among the apostles.”
American Standard Version: “who are of note among the apostles.”
English Standard Version: “They are well known to the apostles.”
New International Version: “They are outstanding among the Apostles.” The footnotes goes on to clarify: “Or are esteemed by.”
I could go on and on. Whether they are conservative or liberal translators, they all seemed to agree and hold a view completely contrary to the writer of this article.
“The instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees.”
I agree and in response I will quote another writer on the subject:
“The word “ordained” is found nineteen times in the New Testament. It is used first where Jesus ordained the twelve Apostles. Afterwards, it is used only of men. It is never used in connection to a female becoming a preacher.
In our search for the Apostolic Woman in the New Testament, we will not find one who made herself equal to Jesus Messiah, the Apostles, the Elders, the Bishops, or any other Preacher. We will not find one woman preacher in all of the New Testament. We will not find one woman Pastor. We will not find one woman evangelist. We will not find one woman Apostle. Not a single woman wrote a book of the New Testament. Not one woman baptized someone else. Not one woman dedicated the child of another mother. Not one woman received tithes or offerings for preaching. Not one woman was ordained an Elder or Bishop. There are no qualifications for a woman preacher. There is not a single case where a Pastor shared his Calling and authority with his wife. Not a single woman was identified as a co-pastor. The entire Church up to the time the last Apostle died, never ordained or permitted a woman preacher.”
That is unquestionably the “divinely approved pattern” of Scripture and, as such, should be followed.
Genesis 2:18-25
“Some expositors have taught that all women should be subordinate to adult men because Eve was created after Adam to be his helper. (“help meet,” KJV). Yet the word ezer (“helper”) is never used in the Hebrew Bible with a subordinate meaning.”
Here the writer appears to do a bait-and-switch. He begins by denouncing the idea of all women being in subjection to all men, but then the subject flops to the relationship between married partners. This is done as if to lump the two very different concepts into one.
In reality, I’ve never known an “expositor” of any kind to espouse that all women are subject unto all men. As it is possible to find proponents of virtually any idea imaginable if a person looks hard enough, I’m sure there are some who teach this, but they are very rare.
In reality, Scripture teaches that women are to be obedient to their own husbands. Titus 2:5 And that women are to be in general subjection in the church. 1 Tim. 2:11. I know of no place in the Word of God that commands women to be in subjection to all men based solely on gender.
So, what of the argument? We can certainly concede that ezer (helper) in Genesis 2:18 may not carry a submissive connotation to it. But the word mashal in Genesis 3:16 certainly does:
1) to rule, have dominion, reign
a) (Qal) to rule, have dominion
b) (Hiphil)
1) to cause to rule
2) to exercise dominion
Therefore Genesis 2:18 cannot be used as a deflection of a woman’s responsibility to be in submission to her husband due to the fact that Genesis 3:16 leaves the command beyond dispute.
Paul’s Emphasis on Charismatic Ministry.
The context of these paragraphs have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand so I will move past them.
First Corinthians 11:3-12
“The statement that “the man is the head of the woman” has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male authority and to exclude women from spiritual leadership. Two alternative translations for kephale (“head”), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) “authority over” and (2) “source” or “origin.”
There are a couple of very telling statements that need to be highlighted in this quote. “…has for centuries been used…” and “…debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars…”
Both statements are absolutely true, to the shame of the proponents of women preachers. While it is certainly hotly contested among modern theologians, to unbiased students of Scripture the meaning has never been in question. Here’s the true definition:
1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2) metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
c) of things: the corner stone
As you can clearly see, there is no reference to “origin” or “source” in the definition. In fact, in every New Testament usage of the word kephale, it refers to the physical head (body part) or the head of the corner (cornerstone). At no time, when viewed by proper Greek translation, is it used to denote origin or source. As the writer inadvertently states, this error is nothing more than the fanciful rendering of contemporary Evangelical Scholars. Until relatively recent times, this text has never been brought into question by any objective theologians as the meaning is irrefutable.
“Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning.”
Actually an unbiased approach to the text does the complete opposite of that statement. The chapter immediately addresses the need for women to show subjection by having her head covered whenever she prays or prophecies and even punctuates the decree by pointing out that the man is the “image and glory of God” while women is the “glory of the man.”
Paul then goes on to say that “the man is not of the woman but woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
Everything in the context of that passage shows that Paul’s goal is to clearly outline the positional structure of the relationship between the man and the woman. He’ s directly dealing with differing roles and authoritative positions while in no way can the idea of origin or source be injected into the meaning. As with everything in Scripture concerning this subject, it is made clear in these verses that men and women are completely equal in value, while different in position.
First Corinthians 14:34-36
“There are only two passages in the entire New Testament which might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women.”
I suppose my question would have to be; how many does it take? The Bible teaches us to rightly divide the Word of truth. There is no basis for the statement “might seem to contain” in the above quote. It’s not a matter of question. From every pattern in Scripture from the Old Testament through the New Testament the roles of women are confirmed. And this passage is equally clear cut. Here’s what the word silence (sigao) means:
1) to keep silence, hold one’s peace
2) to be kept in silence, be concealed
The same word is used 12 times in the New Testament, in every instance it means to be quiet or hold one’s peace. For example, in Acts 15:12 the Bible says: “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”
So, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 we have a command to women to keep silence and listen. In Acts 15:12 we have the exact same word used to describe a group of people who kept silent and listened.
In fact the same word is used just a couple verses before the Corinthian text in verse 28. In this passage it is used to silence a person who speaks in tongues without an interpreter. He is commanded to be quiet and speak to himself and to God.
And as if Paul supernaturally looked down through time and saw the way his writings would be disregarded and/or twisted, he adds a solid exclamation point onto the matter in verse 37: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
“Instead, they seem to be teachings dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction.”
Before I address the utter absurdity of that statement I will point out that there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim from any Biblical or extra-Biblical sources. The Word of God doesn’t say such a thing, the early church fathers didn’t state anything of the sort, and in fact, the Bible clearly teaches quite differently. The reality is; this totally unbiblical prose came solely out of someone’s imagination and, because it fit into the preconceived notions of many in the modern church, it found legs and grew.
Here’s a few of the problems with the idea that this passages was simply addressing a select group of ladies in the church at Corinth. First, the text reads: “…silence in the Churches.” Obviously Paul isn’t addressing one particular church.
Another problem with far reaching ramifications is the idea that, if he only meant this mandate to a few specific persons, what about the rest of the text, before and after? Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians deals with several issues. Does this mean that if an individual doesn’t like what is stated elsewhere in the context, he is free to reject it by invoking the same argument? What about chapter 13, or 12? How about chapter 15, or 16. We might as well throw in all of Paul’s writings, maybe even the whole Bible.
The point is that we as Christians do not have the freedom to pick and choose what does and does not apply to us in Scripture. Especially when the culling is based on our unwillingness to accept what the Word teaches.
To illustrate the absurdity of this premise, think of it this way. Sister Suzy and her husband are members of the church at Corinth. As such she’s required to remain quiet and in subjection to her husband. She cannot preach or teach men. Her roles are clearly defined as a teacher of young women and children and to serve the needy. But then the family takes a vacation to visit her sister in Ephesus. Suzy is amazed! She is free. She can preach, teach men, hold leadership position in the church, and do pretty much whatever she wants. Soon she convinces her husband to take a job in Ephesus.
Does that make sense to you? Would God really require that Christians in the Corinthian church live in a far more restrictive manner than the Christians in a sister church? That, of course, is ridicules.
Continuing along that line of thinking, I’d have to ask; who’s going to tell the women in Corinth to be quiet? The same egalitarians who teach that this was a specific mandate directed at only one particular church, also teach the utterly unbiblical doctrine of mutual submission between the husband and wife. Therefore, according to them, the husband and the wife are completely equal in position and authority. As for church leadership, egalitarians teach that there really isn’t any church authority. All leadership is servant leadership. They proclaim the fact that Christ led by serving and, as a consequence; there is no authoritative governing body or person in the church. No one can give orders or make rulings. There are only servants.
So, again I ask; who is going to tell the women at Corinth to zip their lips?
But the writer isn’t finished with this argument.
First Timothy 3:11-15
“The meaning and application of Paul’s statement, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership.”
Again I must point out, that until the time of Charles Finney, this was never an issue or a contention within mainstream Christianity. Aside from a very few sects, who were rejected by the main church, the meaning was never in question.
Let’s read the text with the definitions injected: “For I suffer not a woman to:
(Teach)
1) to teach
a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses
c) to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct one’s self as a teacher
2) to teach one
a) to impart instruction
b) instill doctrine into one
c) the thing taught or enjoined
d) to explain or expound a thing
f) to teach one something
Nor to:
(Usurp authority)
1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
Over the man, but to be in:
(Subjection)
1) quietness
a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others
2) silence”
There really isn’t a question of the meaning and throughout Scripture it is repeatedly confirmed. 1 Peter 3:4 points out the kind of woman who pleases God: “4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”
What of the argument that Paul again, was dealing only with a very specific problem within a particular church?
Let me point out two statements from the article:
“Is the prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority a universal truth, or was Paul reporting his application of divine truth for the society and Christian community to which he and Timothy ministered?”
“A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices involving women in the church of Ephesus.”
Really? Is that true? By the term “entire passage” does the writer mean verses 13 and 14 where Paul makes his meaning perfectly clear? Let’s look at this:
1 Timothy 2: 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
So, how does he start the very next verse?
“For the women of Ephesus have been idle and manipulative.”
That is what the writer would like us to believe but if that was what Paul meant, then that is what he would have said. But instead he said:
“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
By Paul’s own words, these are the reasons and the only reasons why women are placed within clearly outlined roles. So to interject any other motive into this text is inexcusable and Biblically criminal. A student of Scripture may not like what Paul said, but frankly that is irrelevant. The Apostle still said what he said, it’s still Scripture, and as Christians we are commanded to obey.
1 Timothy 3:1-13
“This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were intended to be, and indeed were, males.”
The reason that some (actually until recently, all) render this passage as such is simple; that’s what it means.
Here’s the text:
1 Timothy 3:3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
Imagine you were to pick up an employment announcement and read it. Under qualifications the letter states that the applicant must be male, between the ages of 21 and 40, and at least five-foot-eight in height. You are a woman of 48 and five-foot-four. Do you qualify for the job? It’s pretty simple isn’t it?
“Most likely because of majority practice and expectations.”
Such inconceivable Biblical exegesis should shock any Christian. On what basis does any human being have for arbitrarily discounting clear Biblical decree, written by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and under the anointing of the Holy Spirit? And when and where has the Lord ever altered his commands and mandates to succumb to “majority practice and expectations”? Nowhere in Scripture did Biblical truth ever bow to cultural norms. In fact, the truth of God routinely confronted social practice.
Think of it this way. If God’s perfect truth is xyz and a Biblical writer wrote that it was abc for any reason whatsoever, whether social norms, expectations, or under any other motive, that man is a false prophet and a liar.
“Translations of verse 11 present evidence of the translator’s choice based on personal expectations. The word gunaikas can be translated as either “wives” or “women” depending upon the translator’s assumptions concerning the context.”
Let me start by stating that honest hermeneutical translating isn’t done by assumptions concerning context. It is done through proper exegesis of the text. What a staggering statement to come from the writer of this article!
So, we can concede that the word, gunaikas can be translated as women. So, what does that give us?
“11 Even so must their {women} be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.”
Ultimately it did nothing and the text still stands as written. Neither, culture, expectations, or majority practice had any bearing.
Galatians 3:28
“Those who oppose allowing women to hold positions of spiritual leadership must place contextual limitations on Galatians 3:28.”
Yes we do. Just like any honest student of Scripture must do when studying any passage of the Bible. Everything must be taken in context; otherwise we would have doctrinal chaos. Without context we could take Luke 12:19 as freedom to take it easy, eat, drink, and be merry.
So, what does the context say? First we must realize that this text has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. It is a smokescreen.
“Some interpreters restrict the meaning of this triad to salvation by faith or oneness in Christ.”
Why would the interpreters do this? Because that is exactly what the context tells us:
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
“Yet the verse carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ.”
There is nothing here that “rings” of any other message than salvation, oneness in Christ, and inheritance. It is unreasonable and impossible to attempt to interject spiritual authority and roles into the equation.
Here’s something to consider. Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey them who rule over us, and to submit ourselves. Therefore Galatians 3:28 cannot be speaking of authority, as according to the article, there is no such authority in the body of Christ. But the meaning of the text is clear and there is absolutely nothing within the passage that would have the context envelope the subject of roles or authority structure.
Therefore We Conclude
“After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.”
An odd reality within biblical teaching is that, often the most hotly contested subjects in the church are, at the same time, the most clearly defined by Scripture. The subject of women in ministry is a prime example. When weighed against the vast mountain of Scriptural evidence there is likely no single doctrine in all of Christianity with more clear-cut direction.
Along the same line, one of the most amazing phenomena with proponents of women preachers is the attempt to convince Christians, and the world alike, that the Bible actually means exactly opposite of what it says. In reality nothing could be further from the truth.
No amount of study is going to make the Biblical passages mean exactly opposite of what they say. Yet, that’s exactly what proponents of women preachers would have us believe.
For example:
When the Bible says, “Women are to keep silence in the church.” What it really means is that women are to be in the forefront and outspoken.
When the Word says, “Women are not to teach nor usurp authority over the man.” If you study it out further you will find that every church should have programs in place to encourage women to seek leadership roles and welcome them to preach in church pulpits.
Sure, there are passages that state that women are to remain in subjection but if you dig deeper, you will find that, in reality, women are to be in all kinds of leadership positions.
When the Word dictates that the woman is to be submissive to her husband that is just a misunderstanding. What Scripture actually means is that the husband and wife are to be mutually submissive.
It’s really quite silly isn’t it? Those of the Egalitarian persuasion would have us believe that God Himself as well as the men He raised up to write and translate the Word of God are all fools. By inference, they claim that all these men were completely inadequate to succinctly put into words what they meant. And we are left to believe that the millions of Christians, who came before the rise of egalitarianism, were in error on this subject while suddenly, thousands of years later, God opened the eyes of modern translators to see what all the forefathers didn’t.
To put it as concisely as I can, this article that was put out by the Assemblies of God contains some of the worst Biblical exegesis I have ever seen within an Evangelical organization. To say the least, I am very disappointed that a denomination that I have always held in high regard, would stand behind such a travesty of Scriptural interpretation.