Grant Osborne Hermeneutics and Women in The Church
Grant Osborne Hermeneutics and Women in The Church
Grant Osborne 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
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
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
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
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
»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.
»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
"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
"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
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.
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
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 design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.