 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
www.thegospeltruthministry.com
|
| A Member's Bulletin Board. In most cases items posted here originated as email, except as noted. As a Member you are free to submit items to post here. Send to webmaster) |
The Biblical Vision Regarding
Women's Ordination, part 2 Biblical Women In Ministry Several women were commended by name in the Gospels for their ministry
to Jesus Himself (Luke 8.1-3; Mark 15.40ff). Others, especially St Mary
Magdalene, were even commissioned to proclaim His resurrection to His
disciples (John 20.17; Matthew 28.10;Mark 16.7). But none of them held
Apostolic office. To no woman does Jesus give Apostolic authority.
[6]Several scholars have claimed that women held positions of headship in
the early Church, but these claims seem dubious at best. And were they
correct, they would only demonstrate that sometimes the early Church
disobeyed or misunderstood Scripture. Several early writings forbid women
to teach or administer the sacraments, and whether or not exceptions
exist, certainly the heavy weight of patristic practice and statement
supports the view I am suggesting. [7]Some women in the Old Testament held
positions of authority, especially prophetesses. However, prophets were
not priests and held no institutional commission (or ordination) to teach
and preach. In other words, they did not exercise The reference to Phoebe as a prostatis (v.2) could mean she is a ruler
or leader (cf. LXX of I Chronicles 27.31; 29.6; II Chronicles 8.10). But
if it meant leader here Paul would be saying Phoebe is his ruler or
leader, which is not very likely. The word is often used in the sense of
benefactor, and thus suggests her place in the community: "In short,
Paul's readers were unlikely to Junia is referred to in Romans 16.7: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my
relatives [or compatriots] who were in prison with me; they are prominent
among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." Though often
cited by supporters of women's ordination, this is a highly ambiguous
text. Does prominent among the apostles mean that they were prominent
apostles or that they were If they were Apostles in the same way as Paul and the Twelve, it is very odd they are tucked away in the midst of this list of fellow workers. It is far more likely that they are apostles in the sense that they were missionaries, similar to Prisca and Aquila, who moved around (Acts 18.2,18,26; Romans 16.3; I Corinthians 16.19). Even were they a husband and wife team with a significant position of authority in the Gospel ministry, this does not mean there was no distinction of role between them as husband and wife.Paul describes several women as close associates in his ministry: with her husband Aquila, Prisca is said to be a "co-worker" with Paul (Romans 16.3); Euodia and Syntyche "struggled beside me in the work of the gospel" (Philippians 4.3); and Mary "has worked very hard among you" (Romans 16.5). These women had significant ministries. These texts are often said to prove that women held Apostolic office in
the New Testament Church, but the specific nature of their ministry cannot
be derived from these references. We have no reason to think they held
Apostolic office, especially as Paul taught so clearly and consistently
against the practice, as we shall see. Their ministries were valued and even given special praise, but there is no evidence in the texts that their ministry included headship. The strongest argument that can be made for the headship of women in the New Testament is a dubious extrapolation from the silence or ambiguity of some texts. Further, in the cases we know women had an active and public role in the Church, that role was exercised under headship. Women played an active role in worship, for they prayed and prophesied in Church (I Corinthians 11.3-16; 14.3,5). But this was to be done with a sign of authority on their heads, that is, it was to be done in such a way that there was no violation of male headship (cf. v. 3). In addition, as we have noted already, those who prophesied held no pastoral care and were not ordained to the authoritative ministry of those in headship. In conclusion, despite the radical improvement Christianity brought in
their status in comparison with the society of the time, there is no
evidence in the New Testament that a woman served as the head of a
Christian community. My case, however, is not simply an argument from
silence. The teaching of the New Testament on headship and authority, to
which we now turn, indicates explicitly that women were not to be in that
position. Jesus did not speak directly on the question, but His appointing only men to His inner circle is significant in the light of the rest of the teaching of the Bible. Some have argued that Jesus' countercultural elevation of women is an argument for putting women in headship roles, but to the contrary, it seems to confirm the Pauline distinctions. If one so free of the patriarchal, cultural prejudices of His day and
so brave in publicly rejecting them still chose only men to take positions
of headship, the distinctions presumably are not cultural nor a concession
to His age, but expressions of the order of creation. This is so
especially when you Jesus' example in appointing only men as His apostles is often rejected on the grounds that He also only appointed Jewish men. The assumption is that both choices were culturally determined, but the early Church only realized the first was changeable, but not the second. But the fact that Jesus chose twelve Jewish men is significant, not merely cultural. These men formed the nucleus of the renewed Israel (cf. Matthew 19.28; Luke 22.30; Ephesians 2.20; Revelation 21.14) and therefore had to be Jewish. In God's plan, Israel had to be restored and then through the restored Israel God's reign would begin to spread to all mankind (cf. Matthew 10.5-6 with 28.18-20). In extending leadership to gentile men, the early Church recognized
that the Apostles were unique and that the racial restriction no longer
applied. And even were Jesus' choice of Jewish men a concession to
His culture (an assumption we should be very slow to make about the Son of
God), that fact does not tell us whether He chose men for a reason. To
determine that, we must turn The roles in the family are to be represented also in the Church, a
point we will see St Paul making in later passages. [10]The subordination
(though not inequality) of women to men is expressed not The first occurs later in I Corinthians itself, in 14.33b-40. Here we are told the women should keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak (v. 34), and that this is true "in all congregations of God's people." These prohibitions cannot be absolute, since just three chapters before
Paul allows women to prophesy (11.5). What, then, is Paul talking about
here? The topic immediately preceding (vv. The picture we have found in I Corinthians is confirmed by later
Pauline writings, for example, the Household Codes (Ephesians 5.21-33;
Colossians 3.18-19). St Peter gives similar teaching (I Peter 3.1-7). All
these passages speak of mutual respect between husbands and wives, but
also distinguish between the two in the form this respect is to take. The
women are to be subject, the men are to love and show consideration. I
will limit my discussion to Ephesians 5.21, because it is often cited in
support of eliminating the distinction. The word he uses for "subject" (hypotasso) means to submit to the authority of another. Here he is saying that wives are to be submissive to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters. Thus it is misleading to say that verse 21 teaches mutual submission. Paul is not saying that masters are to submit to, to be under the authority of their slaves, nor parents of their children, nor husbands of their wives. What, then, could being subject to one another mean? In part, St Paul
here seems to speak to the community as a whole, not to each individual in
his or her relations with every other individual. The various members of
the community are to submit to one another in keeping with the ordered,
hierarchical patterns of their relationships, which Paul goes on to spell
out in the rest of the passage. [14]This is clearly so regarding children,
since they do not have authority over their parents. The same is true of
slaves. Paul is not saying that children and slaves now have such
authority. Given the structure of Paul's argument, there is no reason to
separate out wives and say that Paul is teaching that they now have
authority over their husbands, albeit one exercised in mutual submission.
What he says of children and slaves he is also saying of women.
[15]Authority in the Church Calvin's point is profoundly true, but he recognizes that such service
isexercised within the patterns of authority. The king in serving his
subjects does not become a subject, nor vice versa. Rather, he remains
king and his subjects remain subjects, but their relationship has been
profoundly changed in The combination of authority and mutual humility and submission is
indeed a constant Biblical theme. I Peter 5.5, for example, begins with a
command to one group to submit to another: "Likewise you that are younger
be subject to the elders." But it ends with a call to mutual submission:
"Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for `God
opposes the proud, but In the Church, as in the life of the Holy Trinity itself, love makes it
possible to be both equal and subordinate. It makes it possible to
understand submission to the authority of another as a high and redemptive
calling. And it also makes it possible to exercise authority
sacrificially, in submission to the Lord. |
