Grant Osborne Hermeneutics and Women in The Church

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

Grant R. Osborne*
There has been a vast proliferation of material regarding the position
of women in Christian society. Four distinguishable positions may be
identified: (1) Women are subordinate to men and cannot have positions
of authority in the Church; (2) women are subordinate to men but
may have positions of authority in the Church; (3) women are equal
to men and should have positions of authority in the Church; and (4)
women are equal to men and should not have positions of authority.
Three NT passages specifically deal with this problem: 1 Cor 11:2-16,
14:34-36 and 1 Tim 2:8-15. Three others deal with the principle behind
the issue by discussing the husband-wife relation: Eph 5:22-33, Col 3:18,
19 and 1 Pet 3:1-7.
I. THE HERMENEUTICAL BASIS
It is the contention of this article that the determining factor in
the discussion is hermeneutical and relates to one's interpretation of
all the command passages in Scripture. When the debate is finished,
the conclusions depend on one's approach to the above passages.1
We might delineate three different hermeneutical stances: (1) All the
Biblical command passages are literal and normative and must be
obeyed; (2) all the command passages are cultural and can only be
reinterpreted with regard to problems today; and (3) both cultural
and normative commands are found in Scripture, and we must decide
which category an individual command fits before we apply it to this
age. Examples of the first category would be some Plymouth Brethren
or Mennonite sects, such as the Haldemann Mennonites, who celebrate
foot washing and "holy kissing"2 at their communion services. The
second group would be represented by Joseph Fletcher and his "situation
ethics," which argues that the only command is love and that each
situation must be handled individually. Most evangelicals would fall
into the third category.
We can readily dismiss the second category on the basis of inspira-
tion. The Bible must be more than a relative collection of individual
religious experiences. If it has any authority at all, it is relevant for
today. But the first approach is more difficult to negate. However,
there are some considerations that argue for a recognition of cultural
*Grant Osborne is assistant professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield,
Illinois.

»This, of course, does not obviate such questions as whether Gal 3:28 is the NT reversal of Gen 3:16b
(on this see below). However, the presence of subordination in the above passages certainly has a bearing
on these related issues.
2
Note that even here they do not take a literal view of this command, for they practice it only at
communion service, not daily.

337
338 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

application in the NT itself. Each of the epistles was written to meet


a specific problem in the first-century Church. When we study these
religious ι principles in the light of their cultural and sociological context,
we discover a complex interplay between cultural and normative in
3
the early Church.
Once we have accepted this hermeneutic, however, we discover it
is not so easy to distinguish between the timeless principles and their
cultural applications within individual parenetic passages. But one thing
has been too often neglected in the debate: We dare not isolate the
passages on women in the Church from the other Biblical injunctions.
What we need is a series of covering laws to distinguish the eternal
core from the cultural application in all the commands of Scripture
and then apply these to the sections on women in the Church. Here
we would like to discuss two categories: (1) general hermeneutical
principles for determining NT teaching; and (2) specific precepts for
distinguishing cultural from normative in individual sections.

A. General Principles
1. Didactic passages must be used to interpret historical events.
This must relate both to the gospels or Acts as interpreted by the
epistles and to historical problems reflected in the epistles. The latter
is especially crucial to the problem at hand. One key to distinguishing
the cultural is to note the historical background behind the problem
and decide what aspect of the command controls the problem and what
is controlled by it.4 For instance, Paul's order in 1 Cor 5:5 to "deliver"
the man caught in incest "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh"
is not intended to exemplify the type of discipline the Church is to
employ at all times. Rather, the specific punishment is controlled by
the situation, but the use of discipline is normative in the Church.
2. "Passages which deal with an issue systematically are used to
help understand incidental references elsewhere."5 This is true with
regard to both doctrinal and parenetic passages. With respect to the
former, the creedal hymn, Phil 2:6-11, would provide the early Church's
theological background in dealing with the incarnation as a basis for
Gal 4:4-5. As for Biblical injunctions, one would interpret Paul's use
of the creation narratives in 1 Cor 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:13-14 on the
basis of Gen 1-3 and Rom 5:12-21 rather than on the basis of those
verses by themselves. To take a mere allusion to a teaching as consti-

3
An example of this would be Christ's choice of twelve male disciples, which has often been used as
a proof-text for male ministers. However, at the same time they were also all Jews; yet no one would
suggest that Paul was wrong in selecting Timothy, a Gentile, to assist him.
4
K. Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 18-22, has a good discussion
regarding the difficulty of interpreting circumstantial events as eternally valid truths. He uses the example
of Matt 10:6 that Jesus was sent only to the house of Israel. This did not become a binding norm for
the Church. Stendahl goes too far, however, when he talks of a "culturally bound" Bible and comes
perilously close to the second hermeneutical category above.
5
See N. Hardesty and L. Scanzoni, AM We're Meant To Be (Waco: Word, 1974) 18.
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 339

tuting the developed doctrine would be to read in too much of one's


own theology.
3. Passages must be interpreted in the light of their context. This
cannot be overemphasized, for the historical and literary contexts of
any passage are crucial to an understanding of the author's intention.
The so-called * 'contradiction' ' between Paul and James regarding faith
and works is a prime example of this. When one understands the diverse
contextual perspectives of Ephesians 2 and James 2, the differences
are minimized. We must discover the author's meaning before we try
to determine the application of his statements to this age.

B. Specific Principles
1. The tools of redaction criticism will help distinguish what comes
from early Church tradition from what was a temporary application
to a specific problem. To list a few of these criteria:6 (a) Those state-
ments that can clearly be attested in other early Christian literature
are traditional; (b) Semitic features may point to a primitive Palestinian
origin; (c) that which exhibits the eschatological emphases of the
Aramaic Church stems from the earliest period; (d) unintentional diver-
gences from the writer's normal ways of expressing his thoughts may
point to normative material.7 While these will not distinguish the bind-
ing laws from the temporal injunctions, they will help one recognize
when a writer is borrowing from earlier teaching, and this is turn
will show that the teaching does not result from the current situation.
2. Teaching that transcends the cultural biases of the author and
his readers will be normative.8 As Stendahl says,9 "Does the New
Testament contain elements, glimpses which point beyond and even
'against' the prevailing view and practice of the New Testament
church?" Here the prime illustration is the application of Gal 3:28
and Philemon to the slavery issue. In Paul's day those statements
were not understood to derogate slavery, but eventually the institution
of slavery was undermined by the implications of them. The parallels
between this and the woman's role are obvious, both from the Galatians
reference and from the presence of the two side-by-side in the Hausta-
feln sections.
3. If a command is wholly tied to a cultural situation that is not
timeless in itself, it will probably be a temporary application rather
6
Redactional tools, of course, have normally been applied to the gospels rather than the epistles. However,
they are just as applicable in tracing tradition in the epistles, as evidenced by recent work done on the
NT creeds. E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (New York: Macmillan, Ì9472) 387-388, 467-
468, applies creedal criteria to the Haustafeln passages, including 1 Tim 2:8-9.
7
We have mentioned only those principles applicable to the epistles. For a good discussion of the field,
see R. N. Longenecker, "Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evaluation and Proposal,"
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1975) 217-229.
8
Here I am indebted to B. Krahn, "The Role of Women in the Church" (unpublished guided .research
paper, Winnipeg Bible College, 1976) 16-18.
9
K. Stendahl, Bible, p. 34.
340 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

than an eternal norm. Here we arrive at a difficult hermeneutical task,


for one's decision depends on the degree of connection between the
situation and the injunction. Nevertheless, when combined with the her-
meneutical tools above, this can help the scholar determine how much
a command is tied to the predicament. One of the best methods is
to note the language employed by the author in the injunction itself.
If the writer unconsciously uses terms that tie the command to the
current problem, it will indicate a high degree of cultural application.
The difficulty of determining this can be seen by considering the
question of foot washing. In itself, it is tied to the ancient practice
of washing the dust off a traveler's feet before he entered the house.
The cultural customs made the act itself a humbling experience; it
could not be required of a Jewish slave and normally the guest washed
his own feet.10 The wording of John 13:1-20 (especially w 14-15)
has been taken by many in Christendom to be a sacramental com-
mand.11 The answer must be found by applying the criteria above
to the passage. We note first of all that Jesus calls it an "example"
(v 15), so it is doubtful whether Christ instituted it as an ordinance.
Secondly, a redactional study of the pericope shows that its purpose
was threefold: (1) to symbolize the cleansing of the believer (v 10);
(2) to illustrate the humility of the believer ( w 15-17); and (3) to
prophesy of Jesus' coming death ( w 10, 11, 18, 19). These show that
the normative teaching of the passage deals with the humility and
cleansing of the believer rather than the institution of an ordinance.
The act itself was symbolic, interpreted in light of current cultural mean-
ing, and is not required of believers today.
4. Those commands that have proven detrimental to the cause of
Christ in later cultures must be reinterpreted. This is mentioned last
because it depends on the above criteria, as they show that the command
itself was tied to the first-century cultural situation. We dare not dismiss
a command simply because the times are against it. If we were to
attempt this, all the ethics of Scripture would be discarded in this
un-Christian age. However, this becomes helpful in re-examining the
normativeness of a command. For example, the oft-commanded "Greet
one another with a holy kiss" (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12;
1 Thess 5:26) came to be a tremendous problem when the oriental
custom disappeared. The repercussions were obvious, and it ceased
to be practiced. The loving greeting is normative, but the particular
cultural method is not.

II. THE EXEGETICAL EVIDENCE


A. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
This passage commands a woman not to "pray or prophesy" with
10
See R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1970), 2. 564-565, for
a more detailed discussion.
11
1 Tim 5:10, according to advocates of this view, indicates the presence of this cultic act in the early
Church. Also, the Dostapostolic Church understood it thus; Augustine states that it was practiced «n
Maundy Thursday (Ep. ad Januarium). Yet the Lutheran Church early condemned it as a "papal cor-
ruption." Today, apart from the groups mentioned earlier, it is not followed widely in Protestant circles.
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 341

her head "unveiled" (v 5) and is the basis for the current practice
of wearing hats or kerchiefs in many Catholic, Brethren and Anabaptist
groups. In determining the cultural setting, we must note that the custom
itself was Jewish rather than Gentile. The modest Jewess was required
to wear a covering over her hair (but not her face) in public. Prostitutes
were not allowed to wear a "veil," and wives who went about uncovered
were subject to divorce, for they were said to be renouncing their mar-
riage.12 However, this does not appear to be the case with regard
to Greek custom, where veils were required in public but not in religious
services (on the other hand, both Roman men and women covered
their heads in worship). The exact situation is difficult to recover, and
there are many anomalies.13 We must suffice ourselves with the obser-
vation that we are definitely dealing with an important custom in the
early Church.
In deciding the binding nature of this command, we must next ex-
amine the reasons Paul gives for continuing this practice. First, we
note the strong emotive terms applying it to the cultural setting: To
fail to obey is dishonourable ( w 4, 5), "disgraceful" (v 6), improper
(v 13), "degrading" (v 14), "contentious" (v 16). In accordance with
specific criterion number 3, this points to a cultural tie.
However, at the same time Paul points to the created order as the
basis for the custom. This is taken by George Knight14 as an indication
that it is not tied to the cultural situation. He argues that since Paul
uses the eternal order as the basis for the injunction, it is meant to
be normative for all times. In this light we might note that Paul's
argument here proceeds from creation rather than the fall, and this
negates the argument of those who say that the man-woman distinction
is the result of the fall and has been removed by the results of the
cross, as noted in Gal 3:28 (on this, see further below).
At the same time Knight differentiates between "the expression of
the principle at stake in a particular practice and the natural provision
that God has made which expresses at all times the principle of God's
order between male and female."15 We must agree with him here;
the argument from creation upholds the male-female distinction, and
it is this latter which provides the theological basis for Paul's command.
Headship and glory are two other reasons. Headship (kephalë), as
used in ν 3, is difficult to define. It could refer to hierarchy of authority
(Knight) or origin (Barrett, in connection with the Greek use of the term
12
See R. C. Prohl, Woman in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 27-28.
13
Another lies in the fact that Paul says men should have their heads uncovered ( w 4, 7), while Talmudic
practice was that men should cover their heads at worship. The most commonly mentioned solution is
that the Talmudic custom began at a later time. It is hard to know why the early Church would change
the custom for men but not for women. At the same time, the Church may have required the Jewish
custom to distinguish Christian worship from pagan practice, where women regularly removed their veils.
Those who argue for the binding nature of this practice use these anomalies as arguments against tying
this command to the cultural situation, e. g., G. Inrig, Life in His Body (Wheaton: Shaw, 1975) 166.

"G. W. Knight, "The Role Relation of Man and Woman and the Teaching/Ruling Functions in the Church,"
JETS 18 (Spring, 1975) 81-91, esp. pp. 84-85.

"Ibid., p. 86.
342 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

16
and with vv 8, 9). Olthuis is probably correct when he combines
the two—* 'prominence' ' in relation to origin. This is illustrated in the
17
chain of relationships in ν 3: Christ over man, man over woman,
God over Christ. There is a certain subordinationism based on origin
in each case. Christ is the creator of men, God the basis of Jesus'
earthly ministry, and man the origin of woman's being (see below
for the interlocking relationship between equality and hierarchy in these
cases).
"Glory" (v 7) serves a similar purpose. While both men and women
are the "image" (eikon) of God, only man is the "glory" (doxa) of
God; "woman" is the "glory" of man. The main idea in the term
is that of "radiance" or "reflection" and it is to be understood in the
same sense as headship. The reference is to Gen 2:18-23 and means
that Adam was given dominion over God's creation while Eve was
made to "help" him.18 The woman was to veil herself in worship
because for her an unveiled head "would symbolize pride in her reflec­
tion of her humanity, which would be shameful and pretentious in the
presence of God."19
Finally, there is the meaning of the veil as the "authority" or "power"
(exousia) of the woman (v 10). Many older commentators (Hodge,
Robertson and Plummer, et al.) took it as the sign of the husband's
"authority" over the woman. However, in a classic article Moma
Hooker20 argued that it was the sign of the woman's "authority"
to worship God as an equal with man. This makes a great deal of
sense in the light of Gal 3:28, and most since have followed her sugges­
tion. The added "because of the angels" probably refers to those angels
who are present at worship and oversee God's order; they would be
disturbed by women who asserted their independence from the Church's
order of worship.
This view is supported by vv 11, 12, which re-emphasize the mutual
dependence of men and women. It balances the hierarchical statements
of vv 2-9 by showing that "in the Lord" (i. e., in the new order instituted
by him) both are equal. Some recent writers have tried to interpret
vv 2-9 on the basis of w 11, 12, but one cannot say that the latter
overturns the former. As Knight argues:21 "Here again the role re-
16
J. Olthuis, ¡Pledge You My Troth (New York: Harper, 1975) 137.
17
There is some debate as to whether this is man-woman or husband-wife. However, the thrust of the
passage would favor the broader reference. As G. W. Knight, "Role," p. 85, points out, vv 11, 12 view
the relationship not in husband-wife but in parent-child terms.

"We must define "helpmate" carefully. There is no inferiority of being implied in the term 'ezer (Gen.
2:18). Dick and Joyce Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," Trinity Studies 2 (1972) 12, point out that it is
used often of God helping his people and occurs sixteen times in Scripture of a superior, five times of
an equal, but never of an inferior. It refers to one who aids someone in need of help.
19
D. and J. Boldrey, "Women," p. 14. If she were to unveil her head when in worship, she would be
glorifying men rather than God.
2
°M. D. Hooker, "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. 11:10," NTS 10 (1963-64) 410-416.
21
G. W. Knight, "Role," p. 87.
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 343

lationship and mutual dependence can be correlated without one de­


stroying the other."
In conclusion, the above arguments all favor the decision that the
role functions of men and women are normative but that the cultural
expression of that relationship in the wearing of veils is not. T h e cultural
language of the passage and its contextual thrust both support this
view. Finally, a tradition-study of the passage bears this out. In ν 2
P a u l stresses the "traditions" (paradosis) handed down to them. T h e n
in ν 3 he expands on this theme: " B u t I want you to understand that
the head of every man is C h r i s t . . . . " At first glance it seems P a u l
is separating this from the catechetical teaching of the Church. However,
the close connection between vv 2 and 3 makes it more likely that
P a u l is expanding it and that he draws together three "traditions":
the Christ-man (creation), the God-Christ, and the man-woman teach­
ing. Also, the creation passages support only the subordination theme,
not the veils. Therefore, it is the subjection of the woman, not the
wearing of veils, that was part of the early Church's catechesis. T h e
latter was an application of the former. Yet in the midst of this there
shines through a spiritual unity and equality between men and women
that transcend both context and culture and that must also be recog­
nized as normative (see below on Gal 3:28).

B. 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
At the outset we must recognize a seeming contradiction between
this and the passage just discussed. In 11:5 it is tacitly assumed that
women "pray" and "prophesy" in churches, yet here they are com­
manded to "keep silent" and "ask their husbands at h o m e " if they
have any question. We might also mention here 1 T i m 2:12, "I permit
no woman to teach." There are several answers that have been posited
at one time or another:
(1) These verses are a later interpolation. Several western texts
(D F G et al.) place this after ν 40, but none omit it entirely, and there­
fore there is no textual evidence for such a decision.
(2) The activities of 11:5 are merely mentioned, not condoned, and
they are disallowed in 14:34. Paul only alludes to a current practice in the
former passage, where the stress is on veils; the teaching on the topic is
found in 14:34, where Paul refuses them.22 In favor of this would be
general principles 1 and 2 above, which say the didactic passage must
control the historical or incidental allusion. Against this would be the
fact that Paul connects the worship activities of women in 11:5 with that
of men in 11:4. It is difficult to make a case that he favors one but not
the other.
(3) Praying and prophesying are not the same activity as speaking or
teaching and therefore are allowed by Paul. They do not challenge the

22
C. C. Ryrie, The Place of Women in the Church (New York: Macmillan, 1958) 74-78. G. W. Knight,
"Role,' pp. 89-90, mentions it as a possibility.
344 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

authority or headship of men, so they are not restricted.23 The problem


with this is 14:4-5, which connects prophecy with edification, and also
Paul's use of prayers in his epistles to present his major teaching to his
readers.24 Therefore it is doubtful if Paul truly separated the two ac­
tivities from the teaching function of the Church.
(4) There were two types of services: a public service for all, and a
private service for believers only. Paul allowed women to participate in
the latter but not in the former, where the unbelievers would be of­
fended.25 The main difficulty with this is the lack of hard evidence.
Prohl claims to find evidence of the closed service in chaps. 10 and 11
(agape feast and eucharist) and of the open service in 14:21-23 (presence
of unbelievers). While this may possibly point to the two types it cannot
be said to yield a final solution, because Paul does not make any explicit
link between the two passages in question and these two services.
(5) The problem of 14:34 deals with a specific difficulty in the Corin­
thian situation, namely with the tendency of the women to interrupt the
dialogue section of the service with rude, unedifying questions. Paul
refuses to allow this activity in this situation but does not give a blanket
refusal to women's participation in the service.26 However, there is no
strong exegetical evidence for such a narrowing of Paul's intentions.
While ν 35 could narrow the scope to this, the negatives of ν 34
("keep silence," "not permitted to speak") seem more general than that.
T h e best solutions would probably be the last two (perhaps a combi­
nation of them), 2 7 although it is impossible to be certain. T h e y have
the fewest difficulties. However, we still must determine the situation
and define the arguments used by Paul. T h e command to silence is
connected with the idea of subordination and that in turn is modified
by "even as the law says." T h e " l a w " (ho nomos) probably means
Gen 3:16 and provides an argument similar to 1 Cor 11:8-9. T h e cultural
background is also similar, although it is explicitly addressed to wives
here (v 35, "ask their husbands": cf. footnote 17). 28 B o t h Jew and

»G. W. Knight, "Role," p. 90, also labels this a possibility. This is the assertion of J. B. Hurley, "Did
Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of I Cor. 11:2-16 and I Cor. 14:33b-36,"
WTJZb (1973) 203 (cited by Knight).
24
This point is pretty well proven in G. P. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers. The Significance of the
Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge, 1974) 22-23, 156-157. He asserts that
Paul's written prayers were didactic tools, summarizing his major themes.

"R. C Prohl, Woman, pp. 29-30,34.


26
J. Olthuis, Pledge, pp. 140-141. Others limit it even further, to the use of tongues by the women. How­
ever, this is difficult to hold in light of ν 35, which talks about asking questions (obviously they had been
doing this in the Church).
27
J. Hering, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Ε. T. London, 1962) 154, has an interesting variant
of these last two, saying that women may prophesy, etc., in church but could not participate in the discussion
afterwards, due to the problems they were causing.
28
This does not mean that it had no application to single women. It was probably assumed that they
would ask their fathers at home; few single women would be living apart from their families. The reason
for the explicit reference is found in the situation; it was the married women who were taking the initiative
(this would be in keeping with first-century culture).
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 345

Greek considered it disgraceful for a woman to enter a discussion with


29
men (cf. ν 35, "it is shameful"); in fact, it was grounds for divorce.
The Corinthian women, by demanding their freedom and openly disput­
ing with men in the public worship, were bringing shame upon the
Church, before both God and men-
Austin Stouffer discusses two possible interpretations of the passage:
that the problem relates to the subjection of the wife, or to the confusion
caused by women asking questions. He argues30 that the passage does
not refer to the wife's subjection to her husband but rather to "the
law" and that the law should be understood in a general sense to refer
to the customs of the time. The teaching then has nothing to do with
her status but applies only to the situation at Corinth. This is also
propounded by Walter Kaiser, who asserts that the "law" is "a type
of legalistic bondage newly raised by the Jewish community"31 rather
than the OT law. He believes Paul is quoting from the letter sent to
him by the Corinthians (cf. 6:12, 8:8,10:23).
While this is possible, the major difficulty lies in the 7 articular ho
nomosZ2, which in the gospels refers directly to the Pentateuch rather
than even the whole OT; there is simply no evidence in the NT for
distinguishing oral interpretation from the written law. It seems more
likely that Paul is again referring to the Biblical norm (subjection
of the wife) being the accepted application of his day. However, this
does not obviate either Stouffer's or Kaiser's thesis. It seems probable
that Paul speaks to a circumstantial difficulty here and bases his in­
junction on the need for subjection.
When we apply hermeneutical principles, we again discover that
the normative aspect is the wife's subjection to her husband. The cultural
application deals with women's silence in the assembly. First, we have
the situational code-word, "shameful" (aischron, ν 35), tying the com­
mand to the Church's public relations. They were acting like they had
an apostolic right to change Church practice and determine Church
teaching (v. 36), and this was hurting the proclamation of the gospel.
Second, the context of the passage, dealing with affronts to an orderly
worship service at Corinth, favors the fact that this is the thrust of
the injunction. Third, the subordination theme is the only creedal element

»See R. C Prohl, Woman, pp. 33-34.


30
A. Stouffer, "Hierarchy or Equality: Biblical Implications for Modern Marriage" (unpublished D. Min.
Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1976) 54-59. He adapts the thesis of J. Olthuis, Pledge, pp. 140-141.
31
W. Kaiser, "Paul, Women and the Church," Worldwide Challenge (September, 1976) 9-12, esp. pp.
9-10.

»We are not saying that articular ho nomos refers to the Mosaic law and anarthrous nomos to "a"
law. No such distinction can be made. See W. Gutbrod, "nomos," TDNT 4, 1070, and Blass-Debrunner,
sec. 258 (2).
346 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

in the passage.33 Therefore we conclude that subjection, not silence,


is normative for all times.34

C.l Timothy 2:8-15


The pastoral epistles35 deal primarily with ecclesiastical affairs
and operate on the practical level. This passage occurs in a section
(2:1-15) dealing with public worship.36 There are two areas in ques-
tion here: appearance and conduct. In vv 9-10 their attire was to consist
of modest dress and good deeds. The language used to convey the former
shows a definite cultural attachment. "Modest" (aidous) and "chaste"
(sophrosynè, ν 9) speak of feminine reserve and self-control in matters
of sex; this probably means that their dress caused male worshipers
to lust rather than worship God. Elaborate coiffures, jewels and costly
clothes were common among wealthy Jews and pagans. Paul's command
here relates to an ostentatious display for the sake of drawing attention
to themselves. When we note the context, the point is made more certain.
Paul is speaking of the church service and not general appearance.
This is evident in ν 8, "in every place men should pray," and in vv 11,
12. The refusal to teach must be restricted to the service, for Priscilla
certainly taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), and Paul commended her (Rom
16:3).
Conduct at church meetings is next discussed. The woman is to
"learn in silence" and neither to "teach" nor to "dominate" men
(vv 11-12). This, of course, is similar to but more explicit than 1 Cor
14:34-35. This passage adds the implications of teaching in the first
century, i. e., the idea of authority (authentein, a strong word indicating
dominance or mastery). At that time, when a woman taught a group
of men she would be "lording it over" them. As already stated, this
was an affront to Jew and pagan alike37 and was grounds for divorce.
Women apparently were misinterpreting their Christian liberty to mean
total emancipation from the old mores.
The reasons for the injunctions parallel 1 Cor 11:8, 9 but also are
more elaborate. Paul now adds to the argument from creation (v 13;
33
In ν 34 "even as the law says" modifies "be subordinate," not "permitted to speak." The catechetical
teaching dealt only with the doctrine of subordination, not silence in the Church.

"Knight, Ryrie, et al curiously fail to note that they take 11:2-16 as cultural but 14:34-36 as normative.
However, the tone and thrust of the two are the same. It is hermeneutically difficult to separate them;
a consistent approach should recognize that Paul's stronger language is reserved for the veil passage
and that if silence is normative, so is covering the head.
35
We are assuming Pauline authorship of the pastorals. For a good survey of the issue see D. Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 19703) 584-622.
3e
W. Hendricksen, I and II Timothy and Titus (London: Banner of Truth, 1957) 103, says ν 8 means only
men are to pray in the service. However, two factors militate against this: (1) 1 Cor 11:5, which assumes
women will pray in church (see above); and (2) ν 8, which closes the passage in w 1-7 and is not meant
to be a contrast with women's duties in w 9-10; rather it serves as a transition between the two sections.
37
The Jews were especially strict. Women were not even allowed to teach their children. In both cultures,
however, women were generally kept in an ignorant and misinformed state (see R. C. Prohl, Woman,
pp. 51-54).
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 347

cf. 1 Cor 11:8, 9) the argument from the fall (v 14), which is actually
the exegetical underpinning for the subjection command (see on 1 Cor
14:34-35 above). Quite possibly this may mean that the problem was
more acute; the bluntness of the commands may also indicate this. At
any rate, the allusion to the fall does not mean Paul questioned Adam's
guilt. He clearly discussed this in Rom 5:12-21. The meaning here is
priority of culpability. The woman became the instrument in deceiving
the man,38 and as a result the woman's "desire shall be to your hus­
band and he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16b).
The Genesis passage is also reflected in ν 15, which says she "will
be saved through bearing children" and refers to Gen 3:16a, "In pain
you shall bring forth children." The meaning of the verse is obscure
and has occasioned a plethora of interpretations, 3 9 but most recent
commentators agree that the following phrase is meant to modify
"saved" here. Her role as female is to bear children, and her salvation
is dependent on accepting her lot and "continuing in faith and love
and holiness, with modesty." It is extremely doubtful that Paul believed
a woman's salvation was contingent on her bearing children.
Here we have both aspects from the 1 Corinthians passages: appear­
ance, and conduct in worship. In the first case there is no accompany­
ing theological basis but only the phrase borrowed from ν 8, "I desire
that" (boulomai). Therefore Paul does not mean for this to be norma­
tive, even in the first-century Church. In fact, it is possible to argue
that Paul was addressing only the situation reflected in the epistle and
was not rejecting braided hair or jewels in toto. Instead, he was argu­
ing for an emphasis on spiritual conduct rather than on elaborate appear­
ance.
In the latter section we again see the balance between the normative
principle (the woman's submissiveness) and the cultural application
(not to teach but to be silent). There are no cultural code-words, as
in the previous two instances. However, in the phrase "I permit"
(epitrepo, cf. 1 Cor 14:34) there is a phrase similar to ν 8, "I desire."
Both may mean that Paul was giving his personal view rather than
a divinely ordained command (cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25, 4040). The point
at hand is that this may indicate a temporary rather than eternal ordi­
nance.

38
B. Krahn, "Women," p. 62, follows W. Hendricksen, Timothy, p. 110, in asserting that part of the sin
was disregarding the created order and taking pre-eminence in the decision-making process. She should
have deferred to her proper head, Adam. The problem is that the creation account gives no exegetical
evidence for a hierarchical relationship before the fall. As D. and J. Boldrey, "Women," p. 19, say, her
fault lay "not in 'usurping' Adam's authority . . . but in usurping God's."

39
For example, "through the childbearing one," i. e. Jesus; "she will get safely through childbearing";
or "saved even though she must bear children."
40
This does not mean that there was no sense of inspiration for Paul's own opinions (as some have taken
these comments). The statement "I think that I have the Spirit of God" (v 40) definitely shows this. Rather
it means that "this does not come from the logia Jesu" (cf. vv 10, 12) and "I have no direct command
(i. e., revelation) from the Lord on this" (v 25).
348 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Other aspects of this section that demonstrate this conclusion are


similar to the Corinthians discussion. The cultural context of the pas-
sage is seen in the connection between vv 9-10 and vv 11-15; there is
no true break between them, and both employ similar style. In fact,
one could argue that w 13, 14 apply to w 9-10 as well as the silence-
submission passage. The woman was to be modest in dress as well as
in conduct in the worship service. Also the creedal element must re-
late to the woman's submission rather than her silence; the OT proof-
texts only support the former, and the latter applies it to the cultural
situation.

III. RELATED QUESTIONS


A. Galatians 3:28
Feminists are quick to argue that Gal 3:28 is the theological and
hermeneutical key to the issue. Scanzoni and Hardesty say this is the
only NT reference dealing theologically; the other passages on women
deal "with practical concerns about personal relationships or behavior
in worship services."41 On that basis the Galatians statement,
"there is no 'male and female,' " becomes the crux interpretum, and
women in the new dispensation are completely equal to men.
Boldrey42 notes the grammatical differences between "Jew nor
Greek," "slave nor free" and "male and female" (arsen hai thelu).
The "and" interrupts the "neither... nor" series in the others. He
argues that it is a direct quote from Gen 1:27 and that therefore the
new order introduced by Christ obliterates old distinctions caused by
the fall. In this new order the equality of men and women transcends
the old male/female dichotomy. According to this, the subjection in-
junctions were as culturally conditioned as the veil or silence com-
mands; neither are applicable to this day.
The difficulty with the above view is that Paul felt perfectly free
to assert equality in Galatians and hierarchy in the above passages
(as well as in Eph 5:22-23, Col 3:18-19, 1 Pet 3:1-2). Paul did not
believe there was a tension between the two, and we must ask why.
The usual conservative interpretation is to take Gal 3:28 as reflecting
spiritual equality in Christ and the others as teaching practical hier-
archy in this life.43 This also has difficulties, however, for it is hard
to see the same spiritual/practical distinction in the case of Jew and
Greek.
There is another possibility that I believe better fits the theological

"N. Hardesty and L. Scanzoni, A11, pp. 18-19.

«D. and J. Boldrey, "Women," p. 10, following K. Stendahl, Bible, p. 32.

"See G. W. Knight, "Role," pp. 83, 91, who says they are "equal as image bearers... and, therefore,
in their standing in and before Christ" but "manifest in their servility a difference created and ordered
by God... subjection to men in the home and in the church."
OSBORNE: HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 349

context and a comparison of the passages. In the Body of Christ there


is ontological equality and functional hierarchy. As persons, husband
and wife as well as Jew and Greek or slave and free are equal—
a partnership. Neither side is superior, nor is one more important than
the other. At the same time there is a functional difference in the
partnership, and this role is built on a hierarchical framework. The
wife is equal to her husband in the marriage relationship, but must
subject herself to him in her marital role. The "curse" of Gen 3:16
has not been obviated by Gal 3:28; however, it has been redefined in
the context of Christ's new age.

B. Ephesians 5:21-33
It remains now to define exactly the principles of headship and
subjection. We have asserted that they are normative principles; we
have not stated how this functions in the Christian context. These
concepts are best portrayed in Ephesians 5. Here we note first of all
that the wife's subjection must be subsumed under the broader category
of inter-Christian subordination. The "title" verse for the marriage
passage is ν 21, which says all believers are to "subject" themselves
"to one another." In fact, ν 22 has no verb but borrows its verb from
ν 21. This also favors the view that Taul is stressing not the wife's
subjection but the husband's love (there are three verses on the wife's
role, eight on the husband's role). Moreover, as Markus Barth ably
argues,44 there is no suggestion of inferiority in "submit." In the
middle/passive, as here (the active is reserved for God alone), the
idea is the voluntary act of an equal who "places herself under" another
person. In the marital role it means simply that the woman freely ac­
cepts the headship of her husband. He has no right to demand it,
much less to misuse it; he can only accept it from one who is his
equal and partner in marriage.
"Headship" is similarly defined. In ν 23 we have a conscious re­
flection of 1 Cor 11:3, discussed above. The God-Christ and the Christ-
Church relationships are not built on a superior/inferior basis. They
reflect an ontological equality and yet a voluntary functional subordina­
tion. The husband's headship must be defined by Christ's, and this
means that self-giving sacrifice must govern his decision-making role.
It does not mean simply that he controls the marriage; it means that
his decisions are made on the basis of his wife's (and children's) best
interests. This is why even his headship can be categorized under the
mutual subjection of ν 21; he "places" his selfish interests "under"
his family's needs.

"M. Barth, Ephesians (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 2. 708-709,754-755.


350 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

C. Woman in Community
A major problem area, and one which is difficult to answer from
the Biblical material, relates to the woman's position in the communi-
ty. By and large, the ancients considered the woman's position to be
relegated to the home, and therefore there is little discussion of her
position in community life either in the Bible or in ancient literature
in general. The creation pericope in Gen 2:21-22 definitely stresses the
ontological equality of "male and female," 45 yet the legal codes give
her an inferior relation to the man in the community. Her whole life
was spent for the man, and in some ways she was even regarded as
his possession (cf. Exod 20:17; Deut 5:2). When married, she went from
the dominion of her father to that of her husband (1 Sam 18:17-18), and
if widowed she came under the control of her oldest son. Her whole
life was spent under the rule of a man.46
At the same time, however, while the woman had a lesser position
legally,47 this was not the case in religion or in divine commission.
God ordained Miriam and Deborah to lead Israel, and Huldah the
prophetess was consulted by Josiah when he discovered the law in
the temple (2 Kgs 22). She could attend the cultic festivals (Deut 12:12;
2 Sam 6), and while she was excluded from the sacral offices she
was able to worship the Lord equally with the man. Therefore we must
conclude that while the main place of woman was in the home, she
could on occasion (under the divine impetus) have an extraordinary
impact on community life. It was in later Judaism that the reactionary
movement against women took place.48
The comparative freedom of women was much greater in pagan
society. In Greek culture the woman did have an inferior position
(the Spartan culture is an exception); but the divorce laws, for exam-
ple, were based on equality within marriage (divorce by common con-
sent or either party, division of property, etc.). She had even greater
status in Roman society, where there was a development toward
egalitarian marriage and equal education for daughters and sons.
Women had much greater liberty in society as a whole.49
46
N. P. Bratsiodis, '"is," TDOT 1, 227, says, "The primacy of the 'ish over the 'ishshah is only a primacy
of age (the man was created before the woman). However, this cannot mean that the man has a natural
or ethical superiority over the 'ishshah, because God himself put the 'ishshah as his elbow, indeed by
his side Before God and in the presence of the woman, the man acknowledges... the equality of
the partnership between 'ish and 'ishshah which God had established."
46
See A. Oepke, "gyne," TDNT 1, 781. He says that the Sabbath was not required of the woman (Exod
20:8-9; Deut 5:12-13), but it seems more likely that it was simply a formula (cf. Deut 12:12; 16:11; cf.
31:12). Fidelity in today's terms was only demanded of the wife (while the husband could not commit
adultery, he could have concubines or visit prostitutes).
47
This was not absolute. The law definitely protected the woman from masculine tyranny (Amos 2:7),
and most of the laws were directed to protecting both men and women. See H. W. Wolff, Anthropology
of the Old Testament (tr. M. Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 175.
48
J. Jeremías, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (tr. F. H. and C. H. Cave; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969)
359-376, has an excellent balanced discussion of this development (though he does not acknowledge differences
with the OT period). The inferior position of women certainly extended into religious and community life.
49
See A. Oepke, "gyne," pp. 777-781; M. Barth, Ephesians 4-6 (AB, New York: Doubleday, 1974) 657-659.
OSBORNE. HERMENEUTICS AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH 351

In the life of the early Church the situation lay between the ancient
Israelite and Roman poles. Jesus ministered to women equally with
men and numbers women among his friends, a radical concept to a
Jew. His early resurrection appearances are to women, and he sends
them to witness the fact to the apostles. The woman had great freedom
in cultic life and could even exercise a teaching influence on males
(as Priscilla with Apollos). In fact, the problems at Corinth and Ephesus
were directly related to the new freedom of women in the Church com-
munity. We must conclude that women in the NT do have community
relevance beyond that of the home and do take part in civic affairs
(it is likely that Philip's prophetess daughters were sources for Luke's
information regarding the early Church). There is definitely Biblical
basis for the community involvement of women.

IV. CONCLUSION
There are two aspects to the passages on women in the Church,
as established by applying consistent hermeneutical principles. First,
the subjection of wives to their husbands is normative. As already
stated, this does not mean the husband is absolute master of the home;
indeed, his is the more difficult role. His "rule" must be typified by
self-giving love. At the same time, however, the wife must voluntarily
subject herself to his leadership. A truly balanced marriage must
exhibit both these characteristics. Second, the cultural application of
this principle as expressed by Paul is not normative. The woman need
not maintain silence in church or wear a veil in worship. Nevertheless,
if the culture today demands she adhere to these principles, she must
do so. This is not a license for liberated Christian women to take the
initiative in demanding their "rights." That is exactly the practice that
Paul condemns in these passages. Rather, women must exercise their
God-given gifts in such a way that God, not they, will be glorified in
their particular cultural situation.
There are two applications of these principles yet to be discussed.
The question of single women in society has been partially answered
in the discussion of women in community. Many have interpreted
subjection to mean that women should always accept the menial jobs,
the ones without authority. The time-worn maxim is that "women are
not made to be leaders," yet we have argued that this is a culture-
bound interpretation; in this case it is not even bound to secular society
(the basis for Paul's application) but rather to the Christian subculture.
As Margaret Howe said in a recent essay,50 women should be free
to exercise their spiritual gifts in both Church and society.
This of course has far-reaching implications for the rigorous debate
regarding the ordination of women. As we have argued here, there are
no Biblical obstacles to this in western society, where "teaching" and

50
M. Howe, "Charismatic Endowments and Leadership Roles (With Special Reference to the Place of
Women in the Context of the Church)," paper read at Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting,
Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, December 30,1975.
352 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

"speaking" in the church no longer have the implications they did in


the first century. Attitudes today have changed, and the teacher is
viewed as one who shares his/her knowledge rather than as an authori-
tative giant whose every statement is ex cathedra. The same is true
of the pastor-teacher: Recent developments in the area of sensitivity
awareness and nouthetic counseling view the one who disciplines in the
Church as a fellow member in the Body of Christ (and as one who
himself/herself will need help at some time in the future).51 This
means that the pastoral role is no longer a threat to the subjection
principle.
However, again we must say that women should not force the is-
sue:52 It is one thing to say that western society no longer has such
cultural restrictions but quite another to conclude that women should
everywhere take pulpits. There are pockets of conservative thinking
where such a move would not serve the cause of Christ. The proclama-
tion of the gospel is the overriding principle in a Scriptural lifestyle,
and any actions that interfere with this are to be abandoned. Also, at
such times the "weaker brother" principle would seem to make such
a movement ill-advised. In "old-world" cultures where male dominance
is similar to that of the first century, the issue should not be pushed.
Instead, women should work within the cultural mores to change the
situation in ways the culture can accept. Even here, however, the stress
should not be on changing the culture but on magnifying Christ. That
is the pre-eminent Biblical maxim.

61
We must draw a distinction between leadership and authority. The first does not necessarily imply
the second, at least not in an absolute way. For a woman to take the role of pastor or leader does not
mean that she denies the authority of her husband in the home. In fact, many recent works on leadership
stress the submissive role of the true leader, who has a servant attitude.

^However, there may be a call to consistency. Churches refuse to allow women to be pastors but send
them into leadership roles overseas. Also, they allow women missionaries to speak in their services, and
this is clearly contradictory to their interpretation of the passages.
^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously


published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

You might also like