The Lord Jesus Christ truly had the heart
of a servant, humbly and wholly committed to the will of his Father. He was always
ready to deny himself, make sacrifices, and go to extreme
lengths to fulfill his heavenly purpose. Jesus never compromised or disobeyed
(Phil. 2:8). His primary aim was to submit to the divine will, and he never said
or did anything that was contrary to it (Heb. 4:15).
Jesus Couldn’t Be a Priest
During his earthly ministry Jesus served
his Father in many different ways, but never as priest. Why not? In
the environment in which he lived, what greater honor could
there have been than to serve as a recognized leader of God's people, religious teacher,
spiritual mentor, worship facilitator, and designated link between frail humans
and the heavenly throne? Surely Jesus was gifted enough and possessed the
necessary talents, integrity, and attributes to do a stellar job. Moreover, in
view of the comparatively inferior alternatives, who better to hold the distinguished
position of high priest?
But Jesus never served as priest or high
priest on earth, and there is no indication that he ever aspired to do so. And
it had nothing to do with whether or not he was capable of performing priestly duties,
or whether he or others may have desired it. The bottom line is, the law of God
did not allow it. “For He [Jesus] of whom these things are spoken belongs to
another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident
that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning
priesthood” (Heb. 7:13-14).
Jesus was not permitted to serve as an
Israelite priest on earth because of something beyond his control, namely his
status at birth. The divine will had decreed that priests were to be appointed
from the tribe of Levi through the family of Aaron (Lev. 8:5 ff.; cf. Heb. 7:5), therefore Jesus (of Judah) was
not qualified. From a human perspective with no consideration of biblical precepts,
Jesus was more than qualified. But there was no divine authorization for a
person of the tribe of Judah (even Jesus!) to serve as priest.
It’s not that Jesus was incapable of being
a priest or fulfilling priestly functions. There had been others who were not
of Levi who had attempted to do priestly things (cf. 1 Sam. 13:9-14),2
but in so doing the law of God was violated. Jesus could not be a priest because his faithfulness to God would not allow him to defiantly venture
down that disobedient path.
Can a Woman Be a Preacher?
There are no doubt many gifted women who are fully capable of doing the work of a preacher (in its customarily
understood sense). The real question is, does the divine will permit them to engage in this avenue of leadership-service?
“Let a woman learn in silence with all
submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Now in all fairness, before we
rip this passage from its context and apply it to the modern-day issue of
female preachers, we need to consider what the inspired writer was seeking to
convey to his original audience, how they would have understood the message in
the context in which it was written, and then determine how it applies to our
current situation.3
We have been told that there are multiple
reasons this passage does not say what we think it says to the 21st-century
church. Some claim that the apostle Paul did not actually pen these words,
therefore we can’t take the biased admonition of a misogynistic pseudepigrapher
as authoritative (cf. J. Veitch, Faith
for a New Age 165-66).4 For those who are not willing to go this
far, a more popular assertion is that Paul’s directives are culturally limited
and therefore no longer applicable in modern, western societies (cf. G. Rogers,
The Bible Culturally Speaking
196-214). At the risk of being summarily dismissed as “unscholarly” or as a “patternistic
traditionalist,” when I remove the distorted lenses of 21st-century westernized
thinking, I honestly have trouble reaching the same conclusions as my pro-female-preaching associates.
An Examination of the Text
An Examination of the Text
Before giving instructions to Christian
women in 1 Timothy 2:9-15, the chapter begins with emphasis on prayer,
particularly the content of prayer, with special focus in v. 8 on the ones
praying.5 The apostle specifically instructs “the men” [tous andras], viz. adult males, to pray “in
every place” [en panti topō], i.e.
not just any place indiscriminately but contextually wherever Christian men and
women assemble for prayer. This appears to be in reference to the men leading
public prayers, contrasted with what is expected of the women (v. 9).
The directive continues, “in like manner also, the women …”
(v. 9a), in contrast to what is expected of “the men” (v. 8). “Let a
woman learn [manthanō] …” (v. 11a), which is the
opposite of teaching (v. 12).6 The word translated “silence” in vv.
11-12 is hēsuchía and has reference to a quiet,
gentle disposition (cf. 2 Thess. 3:12), while “submission” [hupotassō] means
to willingly sub-order oneself (v. 11b; cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:21-22, 24;
Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5).
“And I [Paul] do not permit a woman to teach
[didaskein] …” (v. 12). This is not a
total prohibition (cf. Tit. 2:3-5) but is qualified.7 The instruction
continues with oude, meaning “and not,
nor, not even,” then authentein,
meaning “to have authority, domineer” (BAGD 121). The object is andros (genitive of anēr), i.e. “of a man, over a man”
(adult male). If authentein further
explains or qualifies didaskein, the
point is that a woman is not permitted to teach a man authoritatively, or to
domineer/exercise authority over him by way of teaching.
The natural question to ask is, why is
this proscription given? Is it because women are inferior? Is it because they
are incapable of effective teaching? Is it because this particular cultural
environment or unique situation dictated it?8 Let’s allow Paul
himself to explain. The God-breathed explanation (gar = “for”) is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v. 13). The
stated reason is not local or temporary social convention; the pronouncement
here is rooted in the unchangeable order of creation.9 Woman was
created to complement man, not the reverse order (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9).
What if I don’t fully
understand Paul’s explanation? What if I don’t agree with his reasoning? What
if his teaching is adverse to ancient or modern cultural sensibilities? No
matter how many alternative rationales are proposed, this biblical directive
and the reason behind it are unchanging. Failure to comply while affirming allegiance to Christ is to either dismiss the Bible as our authoritative standard or view Paul’s
teachings as inferior to other parts of scripture or claim that subjective “leadings” and feelings carry
more weight than the objective (politically-incorrect) instructions of God’s sacred
word.
Concluding Observations
There are other relevant passages to
consider, which we hope to address in future articles, as well as positive
roles for women in the Lord’s work. But for now, let’s just ponder Christ-like
servant-hood.
While Jesus was fully capable of doing the
job of a priest during his earthly ministry, he did not. The law of God would
not allow it. Interestingly, this was not by means of explicit prohibition;
there was none. Rather, Jesus could not function as priest with divine approval
because of the prohibitive silence of scripture: “Moses spoke nothing” concerning it (Heb.
7:13-14). In other words, there was no divine sanction or biblical authorization for Jesus to have served as a Levitial priest. He was not qualified simply due
to his status at birth. And because of his resolute allegiance to the Father’s
will, there is no indication that he was ever discontent with his heavenly-appointed
role void of priestly responsibilities.
Whether or not a woman (gifted or otherwise) is capable
of doing the work of a gospel preacher, does she possess the attitude of Jesus? None of us can judge sincerity or intentions, but we can observe actions. Not only is there no biblical authority or divine sanction for female church
leaders, there are actually explicit prohibitions against it (1 Cor. 14:34-35;
1 Tim. 2:9-15).10 A godly woman with a Christ-like spirit will not
decry her gender assignment at birth or bemoan the special role she has
been designated, nor will she seek to be in an authoritative/leadership
position in the church that has been delegated to others. To exhibit the mind of Christ and to follow his perfect
example is to utilize one’s unique situation, within prescribed scriptural
boundaries, to the glory of God.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1
Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the NKJV.
2
In 1 Samuel 13, Saul (a Benjamite)
offered a burnt offering that only a Levitical priest was authorized to do.
When Samuel asked, “What have you done?” (v. 11), Saul replied, “I felt compelled …” (v. 12, emp. added).
Notice that subjective feeling trumped the expressed will of God, which
prompted the following response: “You
have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God,
which He commanded you” (v. 13).
3 See Biblical Interpretation: Asking the Right Questions. The
context: “To Timothy … in Ephesus” (1:1-3a) around AD 62-64. Timothy is
admonished to teach truth and stand against falsehood (1:3b-20), with specific
instructions concerning public prayer (2:1-8), the demeanor of women (2:9-15),
qualifications of elders and deacons (3:1-13), conduct in the church (3:14-16),
dealing with false teaching (4:1-16), instructions concerning various members
(5:1–6:2), and miscellaneous exhortations (6:3-21).
4
For a response, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction
to the New Testament 177-80; also Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1).
5 Paul’s statement, “I desire” [boulomai], means “to will, decree, appoint” (cf. 5:14; 1 Cor. 12:11; Tit. 3:8) on the basis of reason rather than emotion. See BAGD 146; H. K. Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 72; K. Wuest, Word Studies 45. On the concept of men “lifting up holy hands,” see Lifting Up Holy Hands.
5 Paul’s statement, “I desire” [boulomai], means “to will, decree, appoint” (cf. 5:14; 1 Cor. 12:11; Tit. 3:8) on the basis of reason rather than emotion. See BAGD 146; H. K. Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 72; K. Wuest, Word Studies 45. On the concept of men “lifting up holy hands,” see Lifting Up Holy Hands.
6 While the Greek third person
imperative is typically rendered, “Let him/her,” this should not be equated
with the permissive idea in English. “Its force is more akin to he must, however, or periphrastically, I command him to …” (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 486). That a Christian woman is even permitted to “learn” is revolutionary considering the patriarchal environment that discouraged the education of women (D. McNamara, FHU University's Scholars' Day, 26 Oct. 2018). Further, women
are to adorn themselves en katastolē kosmiō … (v. 9b), lit. in respectable deportment. Reading this passage through first-century Ephesian glasses makes sense
of the culturally-relevant “braided
hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing” (v. 9c), but please note that the
stated reason for the subsequent female-teaching prohibition goes beyond local custom (vv.
12-15). See
K. L. Moore’s “Divine Regulations and Cultural Conventions,” in Getting to Know the Bible 69-73.
7 K. Wuest, citing Dana and
Mantey (Manual Grammar of the Greek
NT 199), observes that the present imperative “to teach” here carries the force
of “teacher,” thus Paul is not allowing a woman to be a teacher of men (Word Studies 48-49).
8 G. Rogers alleges that the
reason is “not because there was anything inherently wrong with women teaching
men, but because of the unique situation (which we do not fully understand)
here in Ephesus” (The Bible
Culturally Speaking 210). Others
are more confident in their explanation, affirming that the unique situation in
Ephesus involved cult prostitution (cf. S. H. Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers 39-40), but there is no historical justification
for this baseless assertion (see esp. S. M. Baugh, “Cult Prostitution” 443-60).
9 D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 525. The
secondary reason given is the following: “And Adam was not deceived [hapatáō], but the woman being
deceived [exapatáō],
fell into transgression” (v. 14). The verb hapatáō, used passively here of Adam, means to “deceive, cheat, mislead,” whereas exapatáō, used passively of Eve, is
an intensified form meaning “thoroughly deceived.” The
woman gegonen (perfect tense of ginomai), lit. “stands in a position of
having become” thoroughly deceived; i.e. she was in the past and continues to
be in the present [recognized as one] thoroughly deceived. Note that the pronominal reference to “she” in v. 15 (lit. “she will be
saved through the childbearing”) has “the woman” (v. 14) as its nearest
antecedent, identified as “Eve” in v. 13.
10 For responses to commonly
raised objections, see Questions Concerning Woman's Role. The oft-cited biblical examples of women serving the Lord (e.g. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28-29; 20:1-2; Acts
2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-3, 6, 7, 12; Phil. 4:2-3) are a far (anachronistic) cry from the modern
concept of female preachers. On the role of prophetesses in the early church,
see Female Head-coverings (Part 2).
Works
Cited:
BAGD: Bauer, Walter, W. F.
Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1979.
Baugh, S. M. “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus:
A Reappraisal,” in Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (1999): 443-60, <Link>.
Gritz, Sharon Hodgin. Paul,
Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of 1 Timothy 2:9-15
in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century. Lanham;
New York; London: University Press of America, 1991.
Moore,
Kevin L. A Critical Introduction to the
New Testament: Study and Lecture Notes. Henderson, TN: Hester, 2009.
---.
Getting to Know the Bible: A Concise
Introduction and Study Guide. Winona, MS: Choate, 2002.
Moulton, Harold K., ed. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Rogers,
Glenn. The Bible Culturally Speaking: the
Role of Culture in the Production, Presentation and Interpretation of God’s Word.
By the author: Mission and Ministry Resources, 2004.
Veitch,
James. Faith For a New Age: the Story of
Christianity in the first half of the Second Century. Vol. 4 of The New Testament in modern translation
arranged in chronological order. Hibiscus Coast, NZ: Colcom, 1994.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wuest, Kenneth. Word Studies: The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament for the
English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Related Posts: A Woman's Service in the Church, Let the Women "Keep Silent", The Bible's Radical View on Women
Related Articles: Wes McAdams' People Demeaning Women; Adam Faughn's The Main Issue; Michael Burer, "Well Known to the Apostles," JETS 58/4 (2015): 731-55; Scott Elliott, Gender & Justice, Patrick Swayne, Go Back Further
Videos: Dr. Richard Oster's exegesis of Gal. 3:28 <Link>.
Related Articles: Wes McAdams' People Demeaning Women; Adam Faughn's The Main Issue; Michael Burer, "Well Known to the Apostles," JETS 58/4 (2015): 731-55; Scott Elliott, Gender & Justice, Patrick Swayne, Go Back Further
Videos: Dr. Richard Oster's exegesis of Gal. 3:28 <Link>.
Hi Kevin, I appreciate your article, but feel you gave too little explanation of the priesthood of Jesus. While it's true Jesus could not be a priest according to the law, He was the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 4:14-5:10 makes this clear. So, though technically correct as far as the Mosaical Law, your title and lack of information in the content may take away from your argument concerning women preachers.
ReplyDeleteThank you Josiah for your thoughtful observation. I agree; I barely scratched the surface of Jesus' priestly role. But the example of Jesus in the article is simply for illustrative purposes and is thus limited to his physical presence on earth. Perhaps in a future article we can tackle his current heavenly role as our great High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
ReplyDelete