This is a weighty subject. It’s controversial (though it shouldn’t be) and frankly, it’s time we learned the truth once and for all. It will take far more than more post to get into the meat of the matter, but I’ll try to summarise as best I can. There is a thought process in the church that women, according to the Bible, shouldn’t teach or preach or be in any kind of authority over men. That idea is a derived from a few things, all of which can be easily denounced by a simple understanding of scripture.
Yes, the man was created first. But he was also created incomplete. He needed a partner, hence the arrival of the woman. Notice how once she was brought into the picture, creation was complete. The Bible says that Eve was a “helper” for Adam. Don’t let the English fool you. The correct translation of helper is to “save, rescue, be an advocate” and “a fellow worker, or an associate”. That doesn’t suggest to me that man is superior to women because he created first. If anything, that’s the most faulty (and foolish) justification that exists.
When human-kind fell, a curse was placed upon them. Part of this curse was that women would be ruled over by men. However, when Jesus died, the curse was lifted, so to suggest that women should still be under such a curse is a violation of Jesus’ death and purpose. Jesus’ ministry was open to anyone and everyone, including women. He gave them value and equality. In Old Testament culture, women seen as possessions. If you weren’t happy with the one you had, you could go get another one.
But when speaking of adultery in Mark 10:11, Jesus said: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her”. Note that phrase, against her. Jesus was indicating that the wife would be the offended party. Possessions don’t get such distinctions. In one simple verse, Jesus gave woman dignity in a world where they did not have it. [Quoted from Steve Wilmshurst]
The culture of the day was extremely different to ours right now. The important thing when desiring to apply scripture to our current lives is to look at the way Jesus spoke, the way the early church operated and the way the Bible as a whole addresses the important issues. Looking at the way the people acted within a particular culture is the worst way to come to a conclusion.
In the book of Acts, we find a couple of accounts of prominent women. Lydia for example (Acts 16). Her house was a meeting place for believers, and there was never any mention of her husband. Then there was Priscilla, always mentioned alongside her husbands’ name, in fact, her name was placed first. If you think that was a mistake in interpretation, let me ask you this. Why would a culture that viewed men as authoritative figures even mistakenly place a woman’s name first?
Priscilla and her husband were both teachers to Apollos. Again, there would be no mistaking that fact, because the early interpreters of scripture were still operating with old mindsets. (Acts 18:26). Jesus and the early church didn’t uphold the oppressive cultural views of the Old Testament people. When salvation was opened up to the Gentiles, it was opened to women as well, and all were seen as equals. Jesus broke down the barriers of inequality. Remember his encounter with the woman at the well? That was forbidden in Jewish culture. But Jesus was making a very big point with a simple conversation.
Frequently in the Bible you read scriptures that say there were “x amount of men, not including women and children”. In Jewish culture, women weren’t typically acknowledged or mentioned by name. Imagine how revolutionary it was to read Romans chapter 16, where Paul not only names women individually, but he celebrates them as equals and co-workers. The chapter leads off with the mention of Phoebe, who was a deacon in the church of Cenchreae. Like it or not, that distinction meant she was a member of the clergy. That’s straight from the Greek text in which it was written. No possible misinterpretation.
Paul mentions several other women, including Priscilla, as co-workers in Christ. He mentions Tryphena, Tryphosa, Mary, Persis, Julia and many others. That wasn’t something you would see occur in pious Jewish culture, and that’s why the Old Testament, in particular, has a “sexist” undertone. But that’s not the way we are meant to operate today. Women went from being an afterthought to being mentioned in the same breath as men, as equals, as partners.
In Romans 16, Paul also mentions Junia, who scholars have come to the conclusion is a woman (would you believe her gender is debated, because what follows doesn’t play into the male domination narrative). Junia is listed by Paul as an apostle. By all accounts, that would mean she was in a role of authority. Here comes the hilarious part. Prepare yourselves accordingly.
There is an understanding among some theologians that Junia being an apostle was strictly for the early church, and doesn’t apply today. Therefore, to use her as evidence that women could be in ministry would be wrong. Now those same scholars believe that Paul’s words commanding women to be silent weren’t strictly for that church and that culture but they still apply to us today. That’s some major league hypocrisy and contradiction.
It represents precisely what’s wrong with the church today. We pick and choose what we want to make our point, rather than allow the Bible as a whole to dictate our stance. I’m going to quote Theologians much smarter than me when it comes to Paul’s words to the church about women in first Corinthians.
“Although some first-century women were well-educated, most were not. They married young and stayed at home. This is the primary problem. The women were “speaking up, asking questions to learn what was going on during the prophecies or the Scripture exposition in church. The women are interrupting the Scripture exposition with questions. This would have caused an affront to more conservative men or visitors to the church, and it would have also caused a disturbance to the service due to the nature of the questions.”
“We do conclude that [Paul] was addressing a specific situation rather than making a general prohibition on women speaking in church. His intent was to prohibit disruptive and disrespectful questions and comments that were part of the chaotic Corinthian meetings and in Corinth, these particular practices were coming from the women. Just as he told the disorderly tongues-speakers and prophets to control themselves because God is not a God of disorder, he also told the women to control themselves because the law teaches self-control. If they want to learn something, they can ask questions somewhere else.”
And what about Paul’s words in 1 Timothy?
“In short, it is difficult to take this passage as a permanent command restricting all women from all leadership positions in all churches. It indicates that women should not speak in church, and yet Paul himself permitted women to speak authoritative words in church. His prohibition should therefore be seen as based on the situation at the time, not a rule that applies in all circumstances. It is not even written as a command, so it is preferable to take it as a policy of temporary validity, given because of a temporary need.”
Jesus had to reverse quite a lot of cultural problems, and gender equality was one of them. I think he did a very sufficient job, yet for some reason, that’s still not good enough for staunch, stubborn church leaders. The idea that women shouldn’t be in ministry is a very serious claim, and to base such a stance on faulty reasoning is both dangerous and irresponsible.
Are there people who are afraid of sinning against God by going against the scriptures? Certainly, and maybe that’s why it’s easier just to put a blanket statement over this issue rather than risk doing the wrong thing (and rather than actually trying to learn and understand the Bible). But I would venture to say that prohibiting women from using their God-given gifts because of a widely misunderstood portion of scripture is the much greater offence.
