Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
1 Timothy
2:12, Conclusions on
Women in Church Gatherings
Introduction
& 3 Models of Church Gatherings and Leadership
Examining the Models
Examining the Models
Conclusions and Study Expectations
Examining Church Gatherings
in the Gospels
The First Supper, Jesus'
Specific Instructions, Conclusions
Survey of Post-Ascension
Church Gatherings
Apostolic and Eldership
Functions in Acts and the Epistles
1 Corinthians 1-10 &
Introduction to 1 Corinthians 11-14
1 Corinthians 11-13
1 Corinthians 14
1 Timothy 2:12, Conclusions
on Women in Church Gatherings
Conclusions: 1 Corinthians
14, Church Gatherings & Leadership
1
Timothy 2:12 – Special Case or Universal Teaching?
Viola’s
next argument is an attempt to explain 1 Timothy 2:12 as anything
but a reference to a universal prohibition against women speaking
and teaching in church.
In
the same way, 1st and
2nd Timothy are very difficult letters to interpret because
they are literally dripping with “low-context” statements—statements
that have a context that only Paul and Timothy were privy
to. Therefore, the best we can do is try to piece together
the exact situation that Timothy faced in Ephesus.
Linguistic and historical scholars have uncovered several
facts that throw light on the passage we are considering.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 14-17
According
to Viola’s quote above it is very difficult to understand
Paul’s comments in 1 Timothy because we lack the context that
only Paul and Timothy were aware of. If this is true, then
we are indeed in trouble. After all, if we are unable to understand
1 Timothy correctly without this missing context, who then
can provide that context for us except Paul or Timothy? Thankfully,
Frank Viola can.
Obviously,
there is something wrong with Viola’s argument here. If someone
says that we can’t properly understand the bible because we
are missing critical information that isn’t provided in the
scripture itself, then they can’t then go on to claim to supply
that missing information and provide and accurate picture.
If the bible is inadequate for providing a correct understanding
on its own then we are out of luck. If we try to make up for
biblical inadequacies of this nature with our own perspective
we are making ourselves the authority instead of God’s Word.
What
Viola really means is that if we read 1 Timothy by itself
without first assuming his conclusion that there absolutely
is not a universal prohibition against women teaching in church,
then we will never arrive at his conclusion just by reading
Paul’s letter. Or in other words, to reach Viola’s conclusion
requires ideas not presented in the text. Because of his prior
commitment to avoid any such prohibition, Viola needs to find
a way around statements made in 1 Timothy (and 1 Corinthians
14), which by themselves indicate that such a universal prohibition
was a New Testament norm.
As
we continue to examine Viola’s argument concerning 1 Timothy
2, we return to a similar tactic. In order to support his
denial of a universal prohibition on women speaking and teaching
in church, Viola must explain that 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians
14 are not dealing with a universal teaching, but instead
are responses to specific issues in only a few particular
church communities. Along these lines, one of Viola’s proofs
that 1 Timothy 2 is not a reference to a universal teaching
against women speaking in church is to point to the verb tense
used in verse 12.
The
original Greek is illuminating. It’s
in the present active voice. For that reason, it can be translated
as: “I am not now permitting a woman to teach.” – Frank
Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter,
page 14-17
Because
the Greek verb translated as “permit” is in the present tense,
Viola asserts that it may be better understood by adding the
word “now” between “not” and “permitting.” The added word
“now” is used to emphasize the present tense of the verb.
For reference the King James translation is “I suffer not
a woman to teach.” The New King James translates the same
portion of verse 12 as “I do not permit a woman to teach.”
A comparison of these versions with Viola’s version makes
the difference between them clear.
1 Timothy 2:12:
“I
suffer not a woman to teach.” – KJV
“I
do not permit a woman to teach.” – NKJV
“I
am not now permitting a woman to teach.” – Viola
Each
of these phrasings is rendered in the present active tense.
Without the word “now” the verse indicates that Paul didn’t
allow women to teach. Inserting the word “now,” however, strongly
conveys that Paul had not previously prohibited women from
teaching, but that this prohibition was only a recent, novel
development in response to a unique situation in Ephesus.
At
first glance perhaps some might think Viola has presented
a compelling argument from the Greek itself that the prohibition
stated in 1 Timothy 2:12 is only a recent development rather
than something universally taught by Paul. However, there
is a flaw in Viola’s reasoning and analysis of the Greek.
Let’s
examine Viola’s logic regarding the translation of the present
tense using an example. Suppose we were to construct the sentence:
“Frank Viola writes books.” The verb of this sentence is in
the present active voice just like the phrase “I do not suffer
a woman to teach.” The sentence “Frank Viola writes books”
quite accurately conveys the idea that Frank Viola has written
several books in the past decade. It can also include the
idea that Viola is currently working on another book and that
future books may be written later.
However,
because the sentence is written in the present tense, what
if we decided to couple the word “now” with the present tense
verb as Viola has done with 1 Timothy 2:12? The sentence would
then read “Now Frank Viola writes books.” By adding “now”
to this sentence the meaning of the sentence has changed dramatically.
Instead of referring accurately to the fact that Frank Viola
has written several books over the course of the last ten
years, now the sentence must be understood to indicate that
writing is only a very recent development for Frank Viola.
The new rendition of the sentence would now exclude the idea
that Viola has written several books over the course of the
last decade. In other words, the writing of books is something
that is occurring now, but has not occurred before now.
To
see Viola’s error more clearly let’s apply his translation
to other present tense, active voice verbs in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married
I command, yet
not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her
husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband
put away his wife.
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me
witness in the Holy Ghost,
Romans 15:8 For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the
truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers:
1 Corinthians 15:50 I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye
shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
In
each of the above verses the bolded verbs are in the present
active tense, just like the verb for “permit not” in 1 Timothy
2:12. If we follow Viola’s translation of the Greek each of
these verses would be better interpreted as follows.
1 Timothy 2:1 I now exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all
men;
Was
1 Timothy 2 the first time Paul had exhorted that prayers
be made for all men? Should we conclude that prior to 1 Timothy,
Paul had never exhorted that prayers be made for all men?
Prior to this did Paul advocate that prayers not be made for
all men?
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married
I now command,
yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from
her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let
not the husband put away his wife.
Had
Paul never before commanded that the wife should not be separated
from her husband prior to writing this portion of 1 Corinthians?
Should we conclude that prior to 1 Corinthians, Paul prescribed
a policy allowing a wife and a husband to be separated?
Romans 9:1 I now say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing
me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Was
Romans 9:1 the first time Paul had said the truth in Christ?
Prior to writing Romans did Paul lie?
Romans 15:8 For I now say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto
the fathers:
Was
Romans 15:8 the first time Paul had said that Jesus confirmed
the promises made to the fathers of the Jewish nation? Did
Paul previously deny that Jesus confirmed the promises to
the patriarchs? Did Paul previously teach that Jesus had discarded
those promises?
1 Corinthians 15:50 I now say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Is
1 Corinthians 15:50 the first time Paul taught that flesh
and blood could not inherit the kingdom
of God? Should we conclude that prior to writing 1 Corinthians,
Paul had thought and taught that flesh and blood could inherit
the kingdom of God?
Galatians 5:16 This I now say then, Walk in the Spirit, and
ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Was
Galatians 5:16 the first time Paul instructed Christians to
walk in the Spirit?
Obviously,
the Greek use of the present active voice does not necessitate
the inclusion of the word “now” with the verb as Viola suggests.
And just as obviously, the Greek present tense is not necessarily
best understood as indicating actions, commands, teachings,
or sayings were only being said for the first time as Paul
wrote these letters. And lastly, the use of the present active
voice absolutely does not convey a recent change or reversal
in policy, such as Viola suggests concerning women’s silence,
which he says was not previously required but was now recently
instituted. The Greek present tense does not itself exclude
that the action occurred in the past and on previous or other
occasions. As such, Viola is in error for asserting that the
use of the Greek present tense in 1 Timothy 2:12 itself implies
that Paul’s forbidding women to speak was a new development,
which Paul had not previously taught.
This
examination of the Greek present tense was not difficult to
perform. The fact that Viola offers this argument, which is
so easily proven unsound, only demonstrates his negligence
in rushing to support his preferred conclusion through whatever
means he could regardless of their validity.
Another
of Viola’s proofs that 1 Timothy 2 is only a local issue is
his claim that the Ephesian cult of Diana was to blame for
Ephesian women needing to be silenced by Paul.
Add to that, the main religion in Ephesus was a female-only
cult. The priests who served the temple
of Artemis
(Diana) were all female. They ruled the religion and kept
their men under their subjection. This mindset and influence
appears to have crept into the Ephesian church. As a result,
some of the women were acting bossy and seizing control over
the men. They adopted the heresy and the attitude that
goes along with it. And they began to peddle it in the church
meetings. In short, the women were trying to take over the
church with a false doctrine. This, I believe, is what provoked Paul to write the following passage:
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit
no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is
to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam
was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and become a
transgressor (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NRSV). – Frank Viola,
Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter,
page 17-18
The first point to make is that in Acts 19:24-41,
we find an instance demonstrating exactly what this Ephesian
cult of Diana was capable of. In this entire account there
is not one reference to the women followers of Diana. Instead,
it is a man, Demetrius, who instigates the riot. It is the
male craftsmen who erupt in an uproar in response to Demetrius’
accusations against the Christians. If the women lead this
cult and were so controlling and domineering then why aren’t
they leading the charge? Why aren’t they the chief antagonists?
Viola’s own comments on the situation bear
out that it was the men who were responsible for teaching
the false doctrine in Ephesus,
not the women.
While male teachers were spreading this doctrine
(1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17), it found fertile ground among
the women in the church (2 Tim. 3:6-9). Worst still, their
homes provided a network by which the false teaching spread
rapidly (1 Tim. 5:13-15; 3:11). – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17
Here,
Viola acknowledges that it was the men, and not the women
who were spreading and teaching the false doctrine. So, how
does it make sense for Paul to prevent the women from speaking
and teaching in church? If it was the men, and not the women,
who were spreading this false doctrine, wouldn’t Paul prohibit
the men from teaching? Viola’s view makes Paul either inept
or exceedingly unfair in his solution to this problem.
The fact is that throughout the Roman Empire female deities were worshipped. It’s also true
that some of these goddess cults had female priestesses or
oracles. And it’s true that in Ephesus,
Diana was the patron deity. But it’s also true that despite
these facts, Roman society was a male dominated and patriarchal
society. It is for this reason that Viola himself proclaims
that women were not educated and were socially inferior to
men.
It must be noted that women in the first century—whether
Jew or Gentile—tended to be uneducated. Any exceptions
was rare. Women were essentially trained to be home-keepers.
Thus for a woman to query or challenge a man in public was an embarrassing
thing in the Greco-Roman world. When women interrupted the
men with questions, the men were being interrogated by their
social inferiors. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
The
case was no different in Ephesus.
Despite the popularity of the Diana cult, women were still
not the dominating force in this religion. Viola’s assertion
that the Diana cult was to blame for a unique ban on women
teaching in Ephesus
isn’t consistent with the biblical or historical facts. The
Ephesian worship of Diana did not involve female dominance
in their society and neither was the heresy, which Paul wrote
about to Timothy, taught by women. It was taught by the men.
All of the major heretical teachers mentioned in the New Testament
were men. (Likewise, all of the major Gnostic heretic cult
leaders were men.) Viola is desperately trying to avoid the
obvious conclusions that are demanded if we let the text of
1 Timothy 2 speak for itself without adding our own presuppositions,
which aren’t supported by either the bible or history.
In
another attempt to refute that 1 Timothy 2 entails a universal
ban on women speaking in church, Viola claims that if such
a ban was universally taught in all the New Testament churches
Paul wouldn’t have had to teach it to Timothy because Timothy
would already have known it. Therefore, Viola concludes, what
Paul instructed Timothy must be novel instruction for a new
and unique situation in Ephesus that Timothy had
never heard Paul teach before.
Here
is something else to consider. Timothy
had known Paul for around fifteen years. Timothy had traveled
with the aged apostle on two church planting trips. 58 He
had also visited all the churches Paul founded. If Paul had
universally banned women from teaching and speaking in the
church meetings, why on earth would he have to explain this
to Timothy in this letter? Timothy would have already known
it. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church,
An Open Letter, page 14-17
It
is certainly true that Timothy had known and travelled with
Paul for fifteen years and visited all of the churches Paul
had planted. But Viola’s line of reasoning here is completely
unsound. If Viola’s argument was valid, we would not expect
to see Paul writing instructions to Timothy about anything
that we might suppose Timothy would already have known from
his experience with Paul. But is this the case? Is there nothing
that Paul writes in his letters to Timothy that Timothy should
have already known? Of course not. There are many things Paul
writes to Timothy that Timothy would already have known.
In
1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul tells Timothy not to allow anyone to
teach anything other than that which he himself had taught.
And he instructs Timothy not to give heed to “fables and endless
genealogies.”
1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide
still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed
to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions,
rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Did
Timothy not know that he shouldn’t allow people to teach things
other than what Paul had taught? Did Timothy not already know
that he shouldn’t give heed to “fables and endless genealogies?”
Similarly,
in 1 Timothy 1, Paul remarks that before he came to Christ
he was a blasphemer.
1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus
our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful,
putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor,
and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it
ignorantly in unbelief.
Did
Timothy not know of Paul’s history, conversion, and appointment
unto ministry? Did Timothy not know that Paul had blasphemed
Christ prior to his conversion?
Again,
consider 1 Timothy 1:18-19.
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto
thee, son Timothy,
according to the prophecies which went before on thee,
that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19 Holding
faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away
concerning faith have made shipwreck:
Was
Timothy unaware of the prophecies that had been made about
him earlier? Did Timothy not know that he should continue
to hold to the faith?
Consider
the opening verses of chapter 2.
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For
kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may
lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Saviour; 4 Who
will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge
of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Are
we to believe that in all his time in the churches Paul founded
and in all his travels with Paul that Timothy did not already
know that God is our Savior, that God wills all men to be
saved, that there is only one God, that Jesus Christ is our
only mediator, and that Jesus gave himself as a ransom for
all men? Of course not.
We
could go on and on and we haven’t even made it out of the
first chapter of this epistle. The point is that there are
many, many times that Paul writes to Timothy about things
that Timothy already knew. There are many, many times when
Paul reminds Timothy and provides instructions about things
that surely Timothy already understood and which he had heard
Paul teach before. How then can Frank Viola claim that 1 Timothy
2:12 can’t be a universal teaching of the New Testament simply
because if it was Timothy would already have known it? These
verses show that Viola’s argument here is either due to serious
lack of forethought and incompetence or outright dishonesty
in the goal of asserting his position.
Moreover,
if we apply Viola’s logic to Paul’s writing in general, we
arrive at even more substantial problems for Viola’s model.
Viola’s basic argument here is that if something appears in
an epistle, then it could not have been universal teaching
in the early churches because if it was universal, then it
would have already been known and there would be no need to
write about it in an epistle. What happens if we apply this
to Viola’s favorite proof passage for his own “every member
functioning” model? As we have already seen, Viola argues
that I Corinthians 11-14 both teaches his “every member functioning”
model and that these passages reflect universal practice established
by Paul in all the churches he planted. But if Viola’s argument
concerning 1 Timothy is correct, then the fact that Paul had
to write these chapters to the Corinthians demonstrates that
the content of those chapters was absolutely not universal
otherwise the Corinthians would have already known it. Consequently,
even if 1 Corinthians 11-14 did support Viola’s model, Viola
would have to conclude that such a model was uniquely put
in place in Corinth
and was not universal to the entire early church.
Teaching and Leadership Roles are Gender Distinct
in the New Testament
While
we are discussing Paul’s instructions to Timothy, we might
also remember that our study of church gatherings and leadership
lead us to the conclusion that local church leaders (called
elders, overseers, or bishops) were to fulfill the apostolic
role of leading the church community through the teaching
of the word in church gatherings. This conclusion fits very
well with universal prohibition against women teaching in
the church gatherings. After all, in 1 Timothy 3, right after
prohibiting women to teach, Paul gives instructions for the
appointment of elders.
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.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if
they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
3:1 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;
4 One that ruleth (4291)
well his own house, having his children in subjection with
all gravity; 5 (For
if a man know not how to rule (4291) his own house, how shall
he take care of the church of God?)
Paul
provides similar instructions in his letter to Titus.
Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete,
that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as I
had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of
one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or
unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to
filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good
men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding
fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may
be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers.
Both
of these letters are written to different locations. Timothy
was in Ephesus and Titus was in Crete.
Yet, in both of these passages we see that elders (bishops)
must be men. This is indicated clearly in the texts. Since,
therefore, elders were responsible for teaching the word in
the church meetings and only men could be elders, it necessarily
follows that women could not teach in the church meeting.
Therefore, unless Frank Viola supposes that these instructions
do not reflect universal instructions for the appointment
of elders in every church, but only deal with specific and
unique circumstances for appointing elders in Ephesus and
Crete, we must conclude that 1 Timothy 3 and Titus confirm
the idea that women could not teach in the church meetings.
Likewise,
the same is true for deacons. In this same letter to Timothy,
Paul also provides instructions for deacons. As with his instructions
for elders, Paul’s instructions for deacons only referred
to men.
1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the
deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much
wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of
the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first
be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being
found blameless. 11 Even
so must their wives be grave, not slanderers,
sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let
the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their
children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have
used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a
good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ
Jesus.
This
is consistent with Acts 6, where the first deacons were appointed.
All seven of the persons appointed as deacons in Acts 6 are
men.
Acts 6: 1 And in those days, when the
number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring
of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows
were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve
called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and
said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God,
and serve tables. 3 Wherefore,
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report,
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over
this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to
prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying
pleased the whole multitude: and
they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,
and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas,
and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
An
undeniable pattern emerges from our study of these texts.
First, all of the twelve apostles were males. Second, all
elders (pastors, bishops, overseers) were to be males. And
third, all deacons were males. While some have argued that
the education level afforded women in Greco-Roman society
was the limiting factor, which prevented women from eldership
in the early church era, what reason is there to prohibit
them from serving as deacons, a role whose chief duty entailed
helping to distribute food and finances to those in need in
the church? Surely, a formal education would not have been
needed for this type of work. The fact that all the apostles,
all elders, and all deacons were men despite the existence
of women believers itself decisively indicates that there
was a real, gender-based restriction against women in leadership
roles in New Testament teaching and practice throughout all
early church communities.
Moreover,
concerning the argument that such restrictions were based
on a temporary lack of female education, why don’t any of
the passages asserting the restriction mention education as
a reason? Why do all of those passages explain that the restriction
results from unchanging historical, creation, or redemptive
facts such as Eve’s deception at the fall, man being created
before woman, and Christ being the head of the church? The
fact of the matter is that restrictive texts are not silent
on the question of why there was a ban. They do not mention
education and they do not leave us open to speculate. They
give us clear reasons and those reasons are not transitive
or incidental. Those reasons are permanent, unchanging historical,
creation, and redemptive truths. And so long as those truths
remain they continue to necessitate the restrictions, just
as they did in Paul’s day.
In
his article on this subject, Viola claims that there was no
such thing as a gender-specific spiritual gift.
God
bestows all spiritual gifts with undistinguishing regard on
men and women alike. There’s no such thing as a gender-specific
spiritual gift. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17
Viola
is right. There seem to be no gender restrictions regarding
supernatural gifts. But there certainly were gender-specific
leadership and teaching roles in the New Testament.
As
we saw earlier, after his examination of both 1 Timothy 2
and 1 Corinthians 14, Frank Viola concludes that both passages
are connected linguistically and contain very similar instructions.
It’s striking to discover that there are seven
parallel words that appear in both this text and 1 Corinthians
14:34-35. Two of them are: learn and silent. In
both passages, the word learn is translated from the
same Greek word: 1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman should learn (manthano)
in silence and full submission.” 1 Corinthians 14:35:
“And if they desire to learn (manthano) anything, let
them ask their own husbands at home.” In the Timothy passage,
Paul says that the sisters in Ephesus
should learn in silence and full submission….In
effect, 1 Timothy 2:11 is the same instruction that Paul appears
to give the sisters in Corinth. That is, the women
ought not to disrupt the meeting with questions and challenges.
In the church meeting, they should learn in quietness.
So the first thing Paul says to Timothy is, “Let the sisters
stop asking leading-questions to challenge the brothers. Instead,
let them take on humility and learn with studious attention.”
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 14-17
He
even recognizes the universal New Testament teaching of the
headship of the man over the wife, which is referenced in
several of these very passages that provide a prohibition
against women speaking.
As
far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship
is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and
His Bride. So I take at face value Paul’s injunction for wives
to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22: Col. 3:18; see
also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 20
And
yet somehow Viola contends that these passages are not presenting
a universal prohibition that was taught in all churches. Instead,
despite their inherent connection to the headship of the husband
over the wife, their linguistic parallels, and the sameness
of the instructions themselves, Viola claims that they are
only specific instructions to two separate churches for completely
different reasons due to special circumstances that pertained
to those local communities only.
Consequently, Paul is not drafting a universal
rule for women. Instead, he’s dealing with a highly specific
situation in Ephesus.
He’s speaking to those women in Ephesus
who are peddling a false doctrine. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17
Why?
Because in Corinth, they were interrupting the meetings
due to their lack of spiritual maturity and education. In
Ephesus, they were brazenly seizing authority
over the men with a false doctrine. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 17-18
Is
Viola right to conclude that 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians
14 only pertain to specific issues in Ephesus
and Corinth? Or should we instead conclude that
these passages reference a universal rule that was taught
in all the New Testament churches? Let’s consider the evidence
that we have seen presented by both sides. As we do let’s
keep in mind what we might expect to find in the New Testament
if either position were true.
Conclusions
on Women in Church Gatherings
If
the New Testament provides a universal prohibition against
women speaking or teaching in church meetings we would expect
not to find any examples of women speaking or teaching in
church meetings in the New Testament. Instead, we would expect
speaking and teaching at church meetings to be solely attributed
to men. We would expect that leadership and teaching roles
would be limited to men only. And we would also expect to
find instances where the New Testament prohibited women from
teaching and speaking. We would also expect that there would
be more than one of these instances. And we would expect that
the text of scripture would attribute the rationale for such
prohibitions to larger, unchanging theological truths and
teachings and to the commands of Jesus Christ, rather than
to isolated issues in a single Church community.
If
however, the New Testament provided no universal prohibition
against women speaking or teaching in church meetings we would
expect that we would easily be able to identify many clear
instances in which women taught and spoke in New Testament
church meetings. We would expect that these instances would
portray a balance between male and female participation and
speaking at the meetings. We would expect to have equal information
provided in the New Testament text about the contributions
of Jesus’ male and female followers. We would expect that
there wouldn’t be roles that are reserved for men only. We
would expect that there would not be any passage in the New
Testament which prohibited women from speaking and teaching
in church meetings.
We would certainly not expect to find multiple passages directed
to different churches which all indicated a similar prohibition.
And we would expect that if by some chance there was a prohibition,
it would not be connected to larger theological truths or
biblical teaching, but it would be explicitly connected in
the text to a specific problem in a singular, local church
community.
So,
which set of expectations do we find met by the information
provided in the New Testament?
Do
we see instances clearly portraying women speaking and teaching
in church meetings? Frank Viola claims we do. But where are
they? In his writings on the subject Viola only references
four passages in support of his conclusion (1 Corinthians
14:26, 31; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 5:14; and Hebrews 10:24-25.)
We have looked at each of these passages and found that none
of them specifically indicate that women spoke or taught in
church gatherings and many of them were not even about church
meetings at all.
Contrast
Viola’s support with our survey of church meetings in the
gospels and Acts. Did we find a single instance in all four
gospels or Acts in which women spoke or taught in a church
meeting either before or after Pentecost? No, we do not. In
our chapter by chapter survey of the four gospels and the
Book of Acts, we encountered a number of church gatherings
spanning from the time of Jesus’ ministry through the first
few decades of Christian history after the day of Pentecost.
In none of those gatherings did we find even a single instance
of a woman teaching or speaking at a church gathering. But
in every case we saw that the men spoke or taught or asked
questions. What we definitely did not see in the New Testament’s
description of church gatherings was a portrayal of women
speaking and teaching in equal balance as the men. Likewise,
the New Testament’s information and portrayal of the contributions
of Jesus’ women followers was stark in comparison to the large
bulk of New Testament material that covers the significance
of Jesus’ male disciples in the spread of early Christianity.
Do
we have any prohibitions against women speaking and teaching
in the church meetings?
Yes,
we have at least two passages from to two different church
communities using similar language and providing nearly identical
instructions for prohibiting women from speaking and teaching
in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:12.)
Are those specific prohibitions connected in the text to isolated,
specific problems in a local church or are they connected
to larger, unchanging New Testament theological truths and
teachings? In neither passage was the prohibition stated to
relate to specific issues that only pertained to that local
church community. But both passages did connect the prohibition
against women speaking to universal Christian teaching such
as Christ’s own commands, Christ’s headship over the church,
man being created before woman, the headship of the husband
over the wife, the wife’s submission to the husband, and even
to the general New Testament teaching that the church meetings
were predominately for teaching and prevention of doctrinal
error, which was compared to Eve’s being deceived by the serpent.
And
lastly, we have noted that the apostolic, eldership, and deacon
roles of leadership were all restricted to men only.
Given
these scriptural facts, how can we accept Viola’s conclusion
that there is no universal and unchanging prohibition against
women speaking and teaching in church? Obviously, we cannot.
If Viola was correct why are there no instances whatsoever
of women teaching or speaking at any of the church gatherings
recorded in the gospels or in Acts? Why does the New Testament
contain such a disproportionate amount of information and
emphasis on the contributions of Jesus’ male disciples? Why
are apostles, elders, and deacons all men? Why do we have
any prohibition against women speaking and teaching anywhere
in the New Testament? Why are these prohibitions given to
more than one church community? Why do the instructions given
to different church communities use almost identical language
if they pertain to different issues? Why are they connected
with universal teachings held everywhere, to Jesus’ commands,
and to large biblical truths including the headship of Christ
over the church? Why don’t the texts of these prohibitions
cite unique issues that only pertain to certain, specific,
local churches as the reason behind the prohibitions?
What
we find in the New Testament is completely the opposite of
what we should find if Frank Viola were correct. But it is
exactly what we would expect to find if there was a universal
prohibition against women speaking and teaching in church.
From this we must conclude that there was, in fact, a universal
prohibition against women speaking and teaching during the
church meetings. As such 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 clearly includes
a further and final restriction on who can participate in
church gatherings. This prohibition was a corollary to the
universally taught New Testament doctrine of the husband’s
headship over the wife and the woman’s submission to her husband
as well as Christ’s headship over the church.
There
is no way around this conclusion unless we want to rely upon
proof-texting instead of properly exegeting the scripture
in light of the total historical and biblical narrative, context,
and themes. There is no way to avoid this conclusion unless,
like the Corinthians or the Gnostics, we think that we have
some higher spiritual truth than what was taught in all of
the New Testament and its churches. There is no way around
this unless we want to do what Viola himself calls “all sorts
of exegetical gymnastics to make the clear passages fit our
interpretation of a few obscure texts.”
Frank
Viola may wish things to be otherwise, but what is his biblical
basis for demanding we accept his position? We have surveyed
all the relevant scriptural texts and left no biblical data
out of our examination. On the contrary, most discussions
that present the view that women can speak, teach, and pray
in the church gatherings do not usually present the total
New Testament picture on the topic or even sometimes the full
context from the passage or book itself. Instead, they seem
to require that we separate and isolate each statement from
its immediate context, its overall context, and its linguistic
connections and then interpret it in light of added information
supplied from outside of scriptural text.
Our
conclusion, on the other hand, fits well with what we can
observe from the scripture itself. Women did not speak, teach,
lead, or pray in church gatherings because they were prohibited
from doing so. That being said it is clear that 1 Corinthians
14 presents a further blow to the Viola model’s idea that
all persons at a church meeting should participate equally.
Specifically we see that women will not participate equally
or in the same way as men.