Where and What, But Not Who?

It has become common, even among conservative Christians, to hold that the restrictions on women teaching and having authority over men in I Timothy 2:11-12 are limited to preaching and in some cases church discipline. Mixed Sunday school classes, small group studies, and church conferences can all have women teaching men and not be in violation of this passage. Pastor Philip Ryken argues this in his commentary on I Timothy 2:11-15. He bases this on the use of the Greek word διδάσκω, which means to teach. Here are some quotes from his commentary on I Timothy 2:12. By the way he titles this section of his commentary "But Not to Preach."

He says the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-18 means that all "God's sons and daughters exercise prophetic ministry" which makes "it clear that at least certain kinds of teaching are to be carried out universally within the church." He does not explain what he means by this, which is odd because in principle no one disagrees. The question is not can women teach in the church. The question is can they teach men. He then notes that Priscilla taught a man and thus it must be okay for women to teach men at least in some circumstances (Acts 18:24-26). Again no clear indication of what these circumstances are.

Then he says (all bold is mine):

There is at least one place where it is not appropriate for women to teach however:in the authoritative proclamation of God's Word in the context of the public worship of the church...What he [Paul] writes is not intended to govern men and women in every situation, but applies especially to those occasions when the church gathers for the preaching of the Word of God...What the Holy Spirit does not permit women to do is to transmit apostolic doctrine publicly and officially. To put it more simply, the main thing God forbids women to do is preach (or to exercise the doctrinal and disciplinary authority that is tied to the preaching ministry). 

Ryken goes on to link "authority" with teaching, thus restricting the entire phrase "to teach or have authority" to:

Writing of creeds and confessions that summarize Christian doctrine, and also the formulation of church policy on theological issues. The word authentein [authority] hints that church discipline also may be in view. These things are the exclusive work of the elders of the church....to preach is to exercise teaching authority.  

Depending on the discretion of the elders in the church, some other teaching situations may fall under the category of teaching with authority. The training of elders, for example, or classes on fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. But elders are by no means required to teach every  Bible study and Sunday school class in the church. Women and men who are not ordained may teach a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects (although they should not, in my view, teach confessional doctrine).

Perhaps this is the best place to emphasize that beyond this one biblical restriction, women are at liberty to use their spiritual gifts to their fullest extent in the church.  

Why He is Wrong
"At least one place where it is inappropriate...the main thing God forbids women to do is preach...beyond this one biblical restriction."

Ryken believes Paul's restriction on women in I Timothy 2:11-12 is about where they teach (worship) and what they teach (fundamental doctrines), but not who they teach. They can teach mixed Sunday School, Bible studies, and small groups, but what they cannot do is preach at the regular gathering of the saints and they cannot pass on apostolic doctrine in any official way. Ryken's interpretation falls flats for several reasons.

First, in the text the key is not where they are teaching or what they are teaching, but who they are teaching. Women cannot teach men in the church, which is the subject of Paul's letter (I Timothy 3:15). Ryken's commentary on this section of Scripture is a classic exercise in trying to get around in any way possible what the text actually says.

Second, Ryken wants didasko (the Greek word for teach) to mean preaching, as in Sunday morning in the pulpit. But unfortunately for him the word and its derivatives have a wide variety of meanings including teaching from house to house (Acts 20:20), all Christians teaching all Christians (Col. 3:18), older women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3), the whole teaching ministry of the apostles ( Col. 1:28, 2:7),  and what nature teaches us about men having long hair (I Cor. 11:14).  Didasko cannot be restricted to official preaching on Sunday morning. It can include that of course, but it also includes other teaching as well.  More than likely, Paul here is talking about the entire teaching ministry of the church. There is no reason in the passage, I Timothy, or in the use of the word to restrict this the Sunday morning preaching.

Third, Ryken wants the content of the teaching to be "apostolic doctrine," "confessional doctrine," "church policy on theological issues," and possibly church discipline. Ryken is not clear about what he means here. Obviously, the whole New Testament is apostolic. But Ryken does not mean that women cannot teach men the Bible. He says later that women can teach men "on a wide variety of biblical, historical, and practical subjects." According to Ryken, women can teach men the Bible in a public setting. It just can't be Sunday morning. And they cannot teach the fundamentals of the faith.

However, the word didasko is not limited to fundamental doctrines. Paul's teaching covers a whole host of "Biblical and practical" subjects that are not creedal or confessional in nature. In I Timothy Paul encourages Timothy to "teach (didasko)" on things like sex, marriage, food, and exercise (I Timothy 4:1-11) and how slaves are supposed to react to masters (I Timothy 6:2).  In Titus, there are false teachers who are "teaching things they ought not to" (Titus 1:11). In response to these false teachers, Paul encourages Titus to  "Speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)." The word "doctrine" is a derivative of didasko. Paul then tells Titus to teach older men, older women, younger women, and younger men about things like wise speech, loving their husbands, being reverent in behavior, being sober minded, and not drinking too much wine.  In other words, sound doctrine includes a lot of practical stuff (Titus 2:1-10). This section ends with an appeal to slaves to be faithful so the doctrine, again a derivative of didasko, of our God may be adorned (Titus 2:10). Some form of the word for teaching is used in Titus 1:9, 11, 2:1, 7, 10.  Paul does not encourage his pastors, Timothy or Titus, to restrict their teaching to the fundamental doctrines of the faith. In other words, teaching includes "Biblical and practical subjects" and therefore Ryken's assertion that didasko is limited to key doctrines is wrong. I Timothy 2:11-12 does not mean women shouldn't teach men the fundamentals of the faith. It  means, in the church, women should not teach men at all, whether the subject is fundamental doctrine, other Biblical subjects, or practical subjects.

Ryken's position has become popular over the years. The restrictions on women teaching men in the church have become lax. We don't let them in pulpit...just yet. But anywhere else in the church it is often fine for women to teach men.

Ironically Ryken goes on in the next section to say this:

The preceding explanation of I Timothy 2:11-12 (or something close to it) has been the nearly universal understanding of the Christian church. Only in the late twentieth century did it come under relentless attack...The liberal strategy has been to deny the authority of these verses. 

Ryken counts himself among the conservative interpreters. But he isn't. He is just a softer liberal than the evangelical feminists he mentions later, but his interpretation will eventually gets us in the same mess.The way he limits I Timothy 2:11-12 is exegetically untenable. His restriction of the word didasko is unnecessary and strips the passage of its force. His failure to be clear on what he means provides the necessary wiggle room to look conservative while not sounding too harsh on the fairer sex. This is an interpretative and pastoral failure right at the point where the barbarians are storming the gates. Ryken believes he is preserving the church from the forces of liberal, feminist, Christians. But the reality is he has cracked open the door just enough for them to slip in.

Related Posts
Why a Conservative Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 is Not Enough

Doctrine of Demons: Further Thoughts on I Timothy 4:1-5

I Timothy 4:1-5 is one of the strongest arguments for all foods being open to all men.

People can fall away from the faith because of the false teaching discussed in this passage.  Paul is not expressing some minor disagreement between friends. People can

This false teaching is the teaching of demons and deceitful spirits. These “principalities and powers” will work through insincere liars. These liars are insincere because they give the appearance of rigorous Christian discipline, but are really not Christians at all.  In other words, these teachers are the pipelines through which the demons get their lies into the ears of the people.  This is one of places where the curtain is pulled back and we see who is really pulling the strings of these false teachers.

These teachers have their consciences seared. Seared could mean branded, as in marked by the Devil. Or it could mean cauterized, as in unable to discern right from wrong. The latter is more likely. These men’s consciences have been “smothered and eventually silenced.” Their dead consciences keep them from seeing or understanding that they are influenced by demons.

There are two things expressly forbidden by these false teachers: marriage and food. These are two actions, sex and eating, are at the very center of human existence.  Without either one the human race would perish. They have from the earliest times been subject to man-made regulations. Often celibacy was held up as higher and holier than marriage. And often men severely restricted their diets because they thought certain types of food was evil.

John Stott notes that there are two ways creation has been sanctified or set apart for man to use. First, all things created by God were good so that we might enjoy them and give thanks to Him. The things created are to be received with thanksgiving. This is stated twice, at the end of verse 3 and the beginning of verse 4. No doubt there is an echo of Genesis 1 here where God declares over and over that “it was good.” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) Second, it is made holy by the Word of God and prayer.  That is when we remember what God’s Word has said and offer thanks for what he has done. The first is objective. God made all things good. The second is subjective. We are to set them apart by recalling the doctrine of a good creation and giving thanks for it.

Verse 4 is strong. Everything was good. Nothing is to be rejected.  Paul wants to make sure nothing created by God is ever called taboo.

These verses tie together very strongly redemption and creation.  A failure to appreciate creation could lead men to “fall away from the faith.”  While a proper understanding of creation means we give thanks because we believe and know the truth. And we consecrate all created things by remembering what Scripture says and by giving thanks.

The Whole World Our Banqueting Table

The first six items are here.

7. It is a doctrine of demons to encourage abstaining from foods because you think they are sinful. I Timothy 4:1-5 are very clear on this particular point. Teachers were saying you were unholy if ate certain foods and had sex. Paul denounces these men and calls them the voice of demons. This passage is emphatic and strong. Nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that is fine. But if they don’t eat meat or anything else because they think it is evil, sinful, or less holy they are teaching false doctrine. All things can be eaten, provided they are sanctified by the Word and prayer.  Colossians 2:20-23 and I Timothy 4:1-5 are foundational texts for understanding what use food has in our lives.

8. A lot of Christians use “the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” argument from I Corinthians 6:19 as an argument for healthy living. However, we must remember that Paul is talking about having sex with a prostitute. So if you think drinking soda or smoking cigarettes or refusing to exercise is “defiling the temple” then you are saying that these are the equivalent of sleeping with a prostitute. Is that really what you want to say? Is that really biblical? No doubt this is in the top ten most misused verses in the whole Bible.

9. To refuse fellowship with another brother or sister over food is a great perversion of the Gospel. To divide over organic vs. inorganic, natural vs. processed, meat vs. veggies, hormone free vs. hormones, exercise vs. non-exercise, white vs. wheat, etc. is to deny Christ who has made us one body in the Spirit. We lean towards self-righteousness, which means we lean towards false lines of holiness where we are on the holy side. Food is one of the ways Satan tempts to look down on other believers. Food is not usually a barrier between churches, but it is often a barrier between Christians. We don’t put in our vision statements: “No short, bald, fat guys allowed.” But with our attitudes, who we like to hang out with, and our treatment of men and women we make it clear that thin, healthy people are preferred.

10. This one will make some people mad, but here goes. Many of the current food fads in Christendom are promoted by women. I know this has not always been the case, but it is now. Most of the best-selling “Christian” exercise books and “Christian” eating books come from women. Most of the pastoral problems about food stem from women who pester their husbands to bring up the issue to the pastor. Pastors and husbands need to teach the women in their flocks and homes a Biblical perspective on food and exercise.  I would encourage beginning with I Timothy 2:11-15.

11. It is easy in our culture to see exercise as a means of holiness. Men and women who exercise should remember I Timothy 4:7-8, which follows very closely on the heels of the I Timothy 4:1-5. Paul says that physical exercise is of little value or possibly it could be translated is only valuable for a short time. Paul is not saying exercise is wicked. But he is saying that we should keep it in perspective. Exercise is of limited value in this life and of no value for the next life.  In our sports and super model saturated world it is difficult to keep our exercise in perspective. Go without exercise for a week or a month and see what that does for you spiritually. Did you feel guilty? Do you feel less holy? If so, your perspective is off. I am not saying stop exercising. Exercise is good. But keep it in perspective and remember that it does not make you more holy.

12. Remember that our culture is obsessed with physical appearances and living a long life. Our culture spends billions each year on beauty and health, promoting items, such as tanning, implants, hair dyes, gym memberships, organic food, etc.  The world believes you will be happier if you are thin. And of course, their pockets will be fatter as well. The world wants to live forever. But for us death is gain. (Philippians 1:21) The newspapers and magazines and sitcoms are not neutral observers, but preachers for a materialistic, Godless world, where the only thing that matters is living as long as you can and being as beautiful as you can be. But for us pouring out our lives, including our bodies, is what we are here to do. (See Romans 12:1-2 and Matthew 10:38)  As Nate Wilson said, “Self-preservation is not a great virtue in [our] story.”  Do not buy into the false gospel they are preaching. Pour yourself out for those around you with little concern for self-preservation.

13. Last, but certainly not least, your view of the Lord’s Supper says a lot about your view of food. Is the Supper a banquet, where we feed upon the body and blood of Christ? Or is it a place where we do penance, hanging our heads in sorrow?  A low, somber view of the Lord’s Supper can lead to or come from a low view of the created world, including food. This is a huge topic, but a brief word will have to do.  The only place outside the Gospels where the Lord’s Supper is discussed extensively is I Corinthians 11:17-34. There the picture is not one of somberness, but of so much food and drink people were getting drunk. Paul does not tell them to tone it down. But rather he tells them to wait on each other. The Lord’s Supper is a feast. (c.f. I Cor. 5:8) Once we see that, then I Timothy 4:1-5 makes perfect sense and the whole world becomes our banqueting table.

Back to the Shadows

Food can be a source of great anxiety for Christians. Our society bombards us with what and how we should eat. Every week there is new study telling us about the evils this food or that food. How should we think as Christians when it comes to food? Below is my brief attempt at putting up some guardrails on a road where many are currently driving over the cliff. A couple of notes before I begin:

First, I know there are Christians who flaunt their freedom and eat like gluttons. I know it is possible for the fat person to look down on the thin. However, in the community I am in and the Christian world at large that is becoming less and less of an issue. The bigger issue is holiness by dieting or exercise. That is what I am addressing because that is what I see around me.

Second, each person has to make choices about how they want to eat and what they want to eat. I understand this. However, too often our choices become a source of holiness for us and a way of dividing between Christians. What we eat has very little bearing on our own righteousness and holiness and should not be a source of division in the Body of Christ.

With those qualifications out of the way, here are my points.

1. The Old Testament laws about food have been done away with. It is hard to understand what else Acts 10:9-16 along with 10:28 can mean. Any Christian who tells you, “Don’t eat pork because the Bible forbids it” has failed to understand the New Covenant and is leading you back to the shadows of the Old Covenant.

2. The Old Testament food laws were about the separation of Jew and Gentile. This is clear from Acts 10:28. The Old Testament food laws were not about health.  There are many arguments against this. God never uses this type of language. He tells them to do this because they are to be holy, separate from the nations. (Leviticus 22:26) The Old Testament dietary laws are not a manual on healthy eating. They were a reminder to the Old Testament saints that they are to be separate from the nations. With the coming of the New Covenant those OT dietary laws are broken down as God is making one new man out of two. (Ephesians 2:14-18)

3. Natural food is not necessarily healthier than processed food. In today’s culture, much of the processed food has been stripped of its nutrient value. However, it is important to not overreact. Nature is fallen just like man. There is not pristine, natural wheat. The wheat has felt the effects of sin just like we have.  Also, God put us here to take dominion. We should be trying to make the wheat better. That is what God put us here to do. Just because greedy men tear down what God has given does not mean we should just take food as it is. We were made by God to take up the things in the world and transform them for his glory. This would include wheat, cows, and orange trees.

4. The two primary food sins in Scripture are gluttony and drunkenness.  If you eat too much or drink too much alcohol then you are sinning. However, having an extra piece of pie does not qualify as gluttony, just as having two beers does not qualify as drunkenness. Gluttony, like drunkenness is not hard to spot. The verses on gluttony are few and far between, though it has always been included among the seven deadly sins. Primary verses are Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:19-21. The picture here is not of someone who overeats and is overweight, but of someone who leads a riotous, drunken life and squanders their money and time. (c.f. Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34) I am reminded of the vomitoriums in ancient Rome, where men would eat until they were full and then go throw up so they could eat some more. That is the picture of gluttony.  A fat person is not necessarily a glutton. A thin person can be a glutton.

5. Where your food comes from does not matter. As Americans we have been taught somewhere that it is our solemn duty to make sure our food does not come from a tainted source. But in I Corinthians 8:1-8 Paul says it is not a sin to eat meat offered to idols. (See especially I Corinthians 8:8) If it is not a sin to eat meat offered to idols, then it is not a sin to eat non-organic chickens, lettuce from China, and beef filled with hormones from the meat plant in Iowa. This is an argument from the greater to the lesser. If the Scriptures teach that I can buy meat sacrificed to idols, it is hard to see how it is sin to buy and eat vegetables with pesticides on them or to eat chickens that were stuffed in a small cage their whole life.

6. What you eat or refuse to eat does not make you more holy than someone else. You are not more holy because you refuse to eat white sugar or white flour. You are not more holy because you buy organic. You are not more holy because you are a vegan or drink soy milk. You are not more holy because in your Christian liberty you can eat an entire pizza. You are not more holy because you exercise. Paul makes this point in Colossians 2:20-23.  Men love to draw unbiblical lines of holiness to separate themselves from others. Paul says these false lines make us look holy and feel holy, but in end they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Paul tells us where true holiness comes in Colossians 3:1-17.(See especially verses 5, 8, 12-13) If we worried more about those things mentioned in Colossians 3, sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, and less about what type of flour we are eating, how much fat is in our food or how much weight we put on we would be more holy.

Thin Bodies and Iron Yokes

When Christ and His gospel are preached in all their fullness men and women are set free. They are not set free from rules and obedience. But they are set free from man's rules and they are set free from obedience as the road to salvation. Obedience flows from gratitude for our great salvation, not from a desire to be approved by men. The gospel says that satisfaction has been  made for all our sins. There is nothing we can do, say, think, implement, or learn that will take away our sins. Our sins are freely, completely, taken away in Christ. We now have an easy yoke and light burden. Our King is not a tyrant as men are. He is a our Brother (Hebrews 2:11). We have been freely adopted into His family by our gracious Father. His laws are not burdensome

But bondage is always out there stalking us like a pack of wolves. There are always men rattling chains, but claiming they are keys. They are slave traders promising freedom. They say, "Our yoke is better than Christ's." But we find in the end that their yoke is made of iron and crushes us. We must have our eyes out for those who would bind us.

There are many areas where God's people have been brought into bondage over the years. One of the current yokes is the constant pressure on godly women to be thin and eat healthy. While few churches have it in their bylaws and no one would say it out loud, our women have learned that if you are going to be holy then you must be thin. If you really care about God and your family then you will eat healthy. If you really love your husband then you will make sure you are thin so he wants to have sex. If you really love your children you will lose your pregnancy weight so you can keep up with them after birth. If you really want to be effective for Christ you will be thin so your witness is not hurt by being "overweight." The fruit of the Spirit is no longer peace, joy, and patience but thinness, healthiness, and attractiveness.

The criteria will be different in various church communities. In modern, contemporary church communities it will look one way. In conservative, homeschooling communities it will look another way. In old, established churches it might look another way. But due to the avalanche of advertising and the Internet no community is immune. We daily swim in the world's ocean of ideas. All of us are wet.

Christian culture has bought what the world is selling. Therefore our women are in bondage. What to do?

First, husbands, fathers, and mothers need to plead the shed blood of Christ for putting our daughters and wives in chains. They are insecure. They are ashamed of their bodies, their hair, their nakedness before their husbands, their hips, their stomachs, their pregnancies, their love of food, and how God made them. We have taught them, to our shame, that being thin and hot is more important than peace, joy, patience, and Christ likeness. We have taught them what our Lord never taught, that being thin and healthy is a sign of holiness. We have taught them that they must earn the favor of God. How? They must earn our favor. We have taught them to look down on those who are not thin or healthy. How? We look down on them ourselves. When our daughters put on weight we chide them. When our wives put on weight, are pregnant, or lose that "girlish" figure we stop initiating sex. We have put them in chains. We are preaching a false gospel. Is it any wonder that Christian women are often obsessed by their weight, by food, by exercise, by various alternative medicines, by vaccines (pro or con), by clothes, etc.? Is it any wonder that Christian women are vulnerable to eating disorders, sexual problems, promiscuity, fornication, predatory men, doctrinal heresy, and Fifty Shades of Grey? Is it any wonder that we lose so many of our daughters? Brothers, we have sinned against them. We must repent with tears.

Second, ladies you are daughters of the King. You are complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10).  Has the world put you in chains? Have you added to Christ? Do you believe that you will be "accepted in the Beloved" when you are thin, sexy, and healthy (Ephesians 1:6)? Sisters, repent. The answer is not to try harder. You cannot earn His gift through any amount of exercise.  His favor cannot be earned by thin hips and size 2 jeans. And besides, in the end, all your best efforts will be in vain. Your body will die. It will get old and rot. Your skin will wrinkle and sag. Your eyes will dim. Does that scare you? Do you want to stay thin and young forever? If so, then the world has a hold of your heart. Repent. Do you sit under the yoke of never being quite good enough for your husband? Your father? Your mother? Is there is a lack of freedom in your marriage bed? Are you thin, but still worried about your weight? Are you heavy, but hate your body and wish it was different? Come to Jesus and repent. Of what? Repent of believing the lies of the world, of believing that Christ is not sufficient. This is hard. Repentance always is. But repentance, and only repentance, brings freedom. Christ's yoke is easy and his burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30). Take it and drop the one your father, mother, husband, or the world gave you.

Finally, pastors, we must preach and live the gospel, the glorious, life-giving, gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel does not bind men like the laws of men. It sets them free. There is deep joy when our people know down in their bones that all of their sins are forgiven in Christ. The foundation for a free church is the cross, not any of our laws, traditions, or health choices. Our men must learn that having holy wives and daughters is far different and far more important than having thin ones.  We must warn and gently rebuke where necessary when a man or woman has bought into the world's view of health and body.  We must remind our flock that their bodies are slowly dying, but their souls are being renewed (II Cor. 4:16).  We must remind them that bodily exercise is of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things (I Timothy 4:8). Freedom from the laws of men must be preached and modeled.  There are green pastures and clear waters for the sheep of God. We must lead them there by the Word and by our lives.

Why a Conservative Interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 is Not Enough

Attacks on Scripture must be defended by exegesis of specific passages. For example, hammering out the meaning of I Timothy 2:11-12 and the surrounding verses is an essential exercise in dealing with men who want to subvert God's teaching concerning women pastors and elders. But correct interpretation of key passages is not sufficient. Exegesis of specific passages must be placed in the overarching paradigm of Scripture. Is I Timothy 2:11-12 an extension of the way God made the world, the creation order applied to leadership and teaching in the church, or is it the exception to God's created order? How we answer this question will probably have more impact on our view of ordaining women than the specific exegesis of the passage.

The reason is that if we believe that men and women are interchangeable then a conservative interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 does not make sense. Why would God restrict women in the pulpit, but no where else? If men and women are interchangeable in the created world as a whole, in places such as homes, businesses, politics, parenting, seminaries, etc. then why would they not be interchangeable in the church? A man can hold to the conservative interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12, but if his position is egalitarian everywhere else then he is putting a square peg in a round hole. Eventually something has to give. Usually the first generation holds the line despite the incongruity. But the following generation will often smooth out the square peg, which usually means denying the plain teaching of a passage.

But if God made men and women for complementary, but distinct roles in creation then I Timothy 2:11-12 fits with the way God created the world. If men and women are not interchangeable then the conservative interpretation of this passage (and many others such as I Corinthians 11:3-16, Ephesians 5:22-33) is not odd or strange, but naturally flows with the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is round peg in a round hole. What Paul says in this passage is what we would expect him to say given the rest of Scripture.

My point is simple and applies to other areas of interpretation as well, such what is love or marriage in the sodomy debates. We should exegete specific passages, but we must do so using all of Scripture, not just the specific passage in question. We should not assume that correct interpretation of a passage is enough. Even if we get I Timothy 2:11-12 correct, if our paradigm is off then feminism will win. A conservative interpretation of this passage that is not rooted in creation order cannot hold the line.

I Timothy 3:11~Wives or Women?

In this post, I want to look at the use of “gune” the Greek word for woman/wife, which is used by Paul in I Timothy 3:11. Some argue that Paul cannot mean “wives” here, especially wives of deacons.  The argument is often made that "gune" simply means "woman" not wives and therefore a better translation would be "women" not wives. Let’s look at the data and see how Paul uses this word. Paul uses this word, by my count, sixty-four times, with over half of those uses coming in I Corinthians. 

Here is where Paul uses the word "gune":

Romans 7:2

I Corinthians 5:1

I Corinthians 7 uses the word 21 times.

I Corinthians 11:1-16 uses the word 16 times.

I Corinthians 14:34-35 uses the word twice.

Galatians 4:4

Ephesians 5:22-33 uses the word 9 times.

I Timothy uses the word 9 times

Titus 1:6

In Romans 7:2, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, I Corinthians 5:1, 9:5, and Titus 1:6 the word means “wife.”

Galatians 4:4 does not strictly mean wife though it could be in the background. 

I Corinthians 7 is about the relationship between husbands and wives. Even where the ESV translates “gune” as “woman” wife would usually work as a substitute. For example, in 7:2, 7:3 and even 7:1 where the ESV translates it as “woman” wife makes sense also. The word translated “unmarried woman” in 7:28 is actually the word for “virgin.” “Gune” is not there.

The only place in I Corinthians 7 where “wife” does not make sense as the proper translation of "gune" is if we take the ESV’s translation of 7:34. The NKJV and ESV have different translations of this verse based on different manuscripts. 

I Corinthians 11 is one of the more hotly debated passages in the New Testament for numerous reasons. It is possible to translate “gune” as wife or as woman. Woman makes more sense in the passage as a whole, especially verses 8-15. However, a married woman is not out of the question throughout the passage. Even if we translate it as "woman" most of them would have been married women, that is wives. I think the emphasis in the passage is on her being female, not her being married. But being married would probably have been in the background and some commentators would argue in the foreground.  For example, in verse 5 "head" could refer to the husband.  However, the passage does not appear to be limited to married women though they are the primary paradigm Paul is working with. 

Paul uses “gune” several times in I Timothy. In I Timothy 3:2, 3:12 and 5:9 it clearly means wife, not just woman. In 2:9-15 it means “woman" though we should not discount the mention of childbearing at the end of passage, which points to a married woman. However, Paul is not saying, "Only married women cannot teach in verse 12." This restriction is on all women in the church, though married women are the primary group referred to. 

One of the difficulties is that when we say "woman" we mean any female of any status usually over the age of 18. She could be single, divorced, widowed, married, twice-married, a virgin, a prostitute, twenty-five, eighty-five, etc. While these categories existed in Paul's time, when he used "gune" the primary reference is to married women because most women married.  In our age marriage is an option for women, not necessarily an expectation. For Paul, marriage was the norm both in Christian society and Roman society. An unmarried women would have normally been referred to as a virgin, harlot, or widow. For example, in I Timothy 5 Paul used "gune" to refer to a married woman (I Timothy 5:9), but the rest of the passage he uses the word widow. (Gune is not used in verse 16 where the ESV says, "woman.") 

The second complication is that in our age independent women are the norm. Women are not seen as connected to their household either as wives or daughters. Even married women function independently of their husbands. In Paul's time, this would have been the exception, not the rule. There were independent women, but most women were either married living under the authority of a husband or at home living under the authority of a father. My point is that when Paul uses "gune" he is more than likely referring to married women. However, when we hear the word "woman" we have a much broader group in mind. There is semantic confusion because of cultural differences. 

I want to make one main point with this post. In I Timothy 3:11, wives cannot be ruled out as the proper translation of "gune" given Paul's normal use of the word. There are very few times where Paul uses the word "gune" where "wife" would not make sense. Of course, context is the final determination, which I will look at later. There are objections normally raised to translating "gune" as wives, which I will also address in a later post. For now, I just want to make the point that Paul's usage of the word "gune" does not make woman any more likely a translation than wife. In fact, a study of Paul's use of "gune" tips the scales towards "wives" not the more generic women. If Paul had wanted to say "wives" in I Timothy 3:11 he would have used "gune" just as he did. 

Women Deacons: Defining the Terms

Several months back a good friend of mine and I got in a discussion about women deacons. This lead to research and study on my part. I am going to blog on this topic here and there over the next few weeks. 

One of my pet peeves is people who write on a subject, but never really define what they are talking about, especially if the subject is controversial. I am sure I have been guilty of this in my writing. Insisting on precise definitions can seem tedious, especially in an age dominated by short blog posts. However, it is kind to the readers for a writer to give a clear definition of what he is talking about. I am about to embark on a series of blog posts exploring the issue of women deacons/deaconesses. Before I start I wanted to note what someone can mean when they say women deacons/deaconesses.  Here are the options when it comes to women deacons and deaconesses. If you can think of other options put them in the comments. By the way, I use the term office throughout this post to refer to both ordained and unordained positions within the church.

Summary of the Options
1. Ordained deacons, some male and some female, but with all having equal status and function.
2. Non-ordained deacons, some male and some female, but with all having equal status and function.
3. Male and female deacons with equal status, but different functions.
4. Ordained deacons with an office of deaconess, ordained or not ordained, under the authority of the deacons.
5. Non-ordained deacons with a non-ordained office of deaconess under their authority.
6. There is no office of deaconess/woman deacon at all.

Explanation of the Options
Option 1: All deacons are ordained. Women deacons can do everything a male deacon can do. Both men and women deacons have the same status, role, and function. There are not male and female deacons. There are just deacons. If there was a head deacon a woman could fill that role.

Option 2: The exact same as #1, except the deacons are not ordained.

Option 3: There are male and female deacons with equal status, but distinct roles and functions within the church.  These could be ordained or not ordained. I have not heard anyone endorsing this particular position, though it is possible.

Option 4: There are ordained men deacons. There is a separate office of deaconess (or even women deacons). These women could be ordained or not ordained, but either way they serve under the authority of the deacons. Deaconess is not equivalent to deacon in either status, role, or function, though is some overlap between the two offices. There are several possible ways for widows and deaconesses to relate under this position: 1) Deaconess and widow could be the same office, 2) Widows could be part of the deaconesses, but other women are included as well, 3) Widows and deaconesses could be distinct offices in the church, 4) Widow is not an office, but deaconess is.

Option 5: This is the same as option 4, except neither group is ordained. I have not heard this particular position put forth by anyone though it is possible. Usually a two office view, deacons and deaconesses, has either both ordained or ordained deacons only.

Option 6: There is no office of deaconess in the church. There are a couple of options here. One could say that widows, not deaconesses, are the only proper biblical office for women. This would be basically option 4.1 above but instead of calling them deaconesses they would be called widows. Or it is possible to say there are no officially recognized offices for women in the church.

Thoughts on the Options
For all practical purposes #1 and #2 are the same: one office with both genders included. Most people I have read who are advocating "women deacons" are advocating one of these options. They just are not as clear about it as they should be.

Those who hold to #1 or #2 should jettison the phrase "women deacons" and "men deacons." They should just have deacons. If the men and women have the same status, role, and function then they are equals. The whole point of 1 and 2 is that whether they are male or female is irrelevant to the tasks they can perform.

For all practical purposes #4 and #5 are the same: two distinct offices divided by gender. This group could have the office of "woman deacon" and not mean what #1 and #2 mean.

Option 3 is a bit of a wild card. I have not heard this exact position put forth.  It is an awkward position because it gives equal status, but not equal function. It would be like those who hold to a two office view (elders and deacons) saying that ruling elders could not preach while teaching elders can. I think some who are officially #1 or #2 function like #3. However, if a church has things women deacons cannot do, but men deacons can then they are not equal. For example, if a church has deacons that are men and women, but female deacons cannot visit a sick man in the hospital or cannot serve communion, but a male deacon can then they are not equal, at least not in function. My question would be, "Why give equal status, but not equal function?" That seems to be a contradiction. I am not saying deacons who are women must do everything men do in this type of a system. But if they are equal in status then they should be able to do everything men do. Otherwise you need two offices, not one.

Option 6 has the difficult task of explaining why throughout much of church history, including in Reformed churches, there have been offices for women.

Finally, it is odd to me that so much ink is spilled on I Timothy 3:11 and Romans 16:1, but so little ink is spilled on I Timothy 5:9-16.  Why is there not more discussion of whether or not the widow passage in I Timothy 5 should inform the office of deaconess/women deacons and if so how?

When discussing deacons, women deacons, and deaconesses, function (what they can do) and status (their office), both need to be considered, not just exegetical and historical data. A writer needs to be clear on what office is being given and what the functions of that office will be.

After posting this I thought of one more option: the reverse of #3, where there is not equal status, but there is equal function. Many of the same arguments brought to bear against #3 would be brought to bear against this position as well. Why allow women deacons/deaconesses to do everything men can do, but not give them equal status? Again this seems to be contradiction. 

Women Deacons and Equivocation

Equivocation is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). (Wikipedia)

Recently J.A. Medders, a lead pastor at an Acts29 church, wrote a post on why his church has women deacons. There are exegetical and historical problems with his post. Here I am only going to address the way Pastor Medders uses church history. I will address the exegetical issues in later blog posts. By the way, I am not saying this equivocation by Pastor Medders was on purpose. I do not think he was trying to deceive people.

Pastor Medders says

When we are uncertain what the Bible teaches, not because of the Bible, but because of us—we should consider Church History. Historical theology shows us what the Body of Christ before us has done. This practice may not always lead us in the right direction, but it may help us see more clearly. We should always hold exegesis and texts in our hands, and Church History as a voice in the background. For me, the historical evidence here[in favor of women deacons] is overwhelming

There is wisdom in what Pastor Medders says. Church history can teach us a lot. However, it is easy to get sloppy with our history, especially when we are trying to summarize 2,000 years in less than a thousand words.

Does Deaconess Equal Woman Deacon?
The problem with his history lesson is that none of the quotes from church history use the phrase "woman deacon." All of them say deaconess. This may seem like a petty argument. Don't they mean the same thing?  Perhaps. But this must be proven not asserted. Even if all those quotes used "woman deacon" he must prove they mean the same thing he does.  To assume that similar words have the same meaning from Pliny to Calvin to Spurgeon to Pastor Medders is dangerous. To assert that every time someone used the word "deaconess" in the past they meant what Pastor Medders means in the present weakens significantly his historical argument. He does this while never really defining what he means by the phrase "woman deacon." I am pretty sure I know what he means, but his failure to clarify his position makes it hard to compare his position with the ones from the past.

Brian Schwertly sums this up nicely. While he is only speaking of the patristic age, his point could be expanded to other periods of church history as well.

The study of deaconesses in the patristic age is liable to different interpretations. Some writers (who favor deaconesses in the same office as male deacons) base their argument on the word deaconess without a careful analysis of its meaning or intent. These writers argue that the early church had deaconesses, and so should we. But they are arguing by equivocation. What modern women-deacon advocates are advocating is not women deacons who serve in a separate office from men deacons, who have different qualifications that are based on 1 Timothy 5:9ff. They are advocating something totally foreign to the early church. They believe women deacons would have the same qualifications and serve in the same office as male deacons. They are comparing apples to oranges. They do not bother to carefully examine the character, qualifications and duties of the office of deaconess in the ante-Nicene age but simply rest their case on the name deaconess. They presuppose that their modern conception of a deaconess is the same as the church fathers and councils, despite evidence to the contrary. [Emphasis Mine]

Additional Historical Notes
Here are few more notes from this book that clarify the history of the office of deaconess/woman deacon. The office of deaconess was often built upon I Timothy 5:9 not 3:11. That is why the earliest deaconesses were widows over the age of 60. That age was eventually lowered to 50 and then finally to 40. Some saw I Timothy 3:11 as referring to the same group at I Timothy 5:9. Deaconesses were under the authority of the deacons. Deaconesses ministered primarily to women. They did not minister to men except perhaps in a hospital setting. Deaconesses did baptize women in the early church, but that was because female converts were baptized naked. At some point deaconesses did start getting ordained. But this practice was not part of the earliest records, did not make them equivalent to deacons, and was abandoned at various stages of church history. As one might expect with an office only vaguely described in Scripture, there is quite a bit of variation in both the existence, status, and function of deaconesses throughout church history. To say otherwise is equivocation.

Deacons were part of the ruling class of early church right underneath bishops and priests. Even with this office there was of course variation. They read Scripture, administered the Lord's Supper, preached in some cases, determined who got financial aid, and were ordained clergy. The office of deacon in the early church was built on Acts 6:1-6.  Here is a quote from The Constitution of the Holy Apostles, which indicates some of the authority deacons had. "If any brother, man or woman, come in from another parish, bringing recommendatory letters, let the deacon be the judge of that affair, inquiring whether they be of the faithful, and of the Church? whether they be not defiled by heresy?" In this document, deacons determined whether or a not person could transfer to their parish. It appears from the last phrase that they examined the transfer's orthodoxy. 

We can debate whether or not the deacons should have had this authority, but the point is that historically they did. Church history has examples of deaconesses who had specific tasks and roles in the life of the local body and in the Church at large. But no matter how many times the word deaconess is quoted, church history is not littered with women deacons who had the same status, role, and function as men deacons.  

Note: A few updates were made at 2:45 pm on August 15th. 

John Stott on I Timothy 4:4-5

“And more grateful celebration there should be among us, uninhibited by our lingering evangelical asceticism.  For the truth is that a world-denying Gnosticism has not yet been altogether eradicated from our theology and practice. Instead, we pride ourselves on our super-spirituality, which is detached from the natural order, and we look forward to an ethereal heaven, forgetting the promise of a new earth…We should determine, then, to recognize and acknowledge, appreciate and celebrate, all the gifts of the Creator: the glory of the heavens and the earth, of mountain, of river and sea, of forest and flowers, of birds, beasts and butterflies, and of the intricate balance of the natural environment; the unique privileges of our humanness (rational, moral, social, and spiritual), as we were created in God’s image and appointed his stewards; the joys of gender, marriage, sex, children, parenthood and family life, and of our extended family and friends; the rhythm of work and rest, of daily work  as a means to cooperate with God and serve the common good, and of the Lord’s day when we exchange work for worship.; the blessing of peace, freedom, justice and good government, and of food and drink, clothing and shelter; and our human creativity expressed in music, literature, painting, sculpture and drama, and in the skills and strengths displayed in sport.”