Thoughts upon the Ordination of Women

Many years ago as a student at Nazarene Bible College there was a female student in our graduating colloquium class that had expressed frustration over how she felt as a minister in the Church of the Nazarene, feeling that she was not as respected as she would be had she been a man. In response, I did my best to help her understand the historical and traditional reason for this reality. The professor at the time, Dr. Matson had suggested that we watch a film that was made by Nazarene professors that speaks to the history of women preachers in the Church of the Nazarene. I watched this film and comment below concerning its content.

Dr. Matson stated: “The name of the video is Ablaze with Love. It traces the biblical and historical roots of women in ministry. The fundamentalist view is that women were prohibited in ministry by the early church and therefore should not be allowed today. That is not true to historic facts. For anyone feeling that they really need to have facts in this issue the cost of the video (from Nazarene Publishing House) would be well worth it.”

My Response:

It took awhile to get the video from the NBC library but I have had a chance to view it. In point of fact, women were not “prohibited in ministry” but they were not allowed to become priests and bishops. This is true to historic fact and I want no one to be deceived by this video. So, allow me to address a few of the biblical and historical points that were mentioned in this video.

The video mentions that Pope Gelasius I wrote a letter (Epistle 14.26) in March 11th 494 AD to three regions of southern Italy addressing a heretical practice of ordaining women by saying: “Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong." It seems precarious to me for the video to argue for the legitimacy of women in ministry (though the video was only showing evidence that women did serve in such roles even if illegitimately) by using a case of aberration that was stopped by the dictates of Rome. This example allows me to make a historical point: There has never been an official document from Rome, a local or ecumenical council, or even one of the Fathers of the Church that approves the practice of ordaining women as priests or bishops. On the contrary, there is historical evidence from all of these sources condemning the practice. It is this very fact why Pope Gelasius I wrote against the aberration.

The video mentions that there is a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Prudentia and Praexedis in Rome that features a woman whom is called “Theodora Episcopa" dressed in what some claim to be priestly garments. This mosaic is being used as evidence that women were bishops in the early Church. Does it seem odd to anyone that the video must appeal to an interpretation of mosaics and art in order to present its point? This fact simply demonstrates the absence of historical evidence anywhere else and leaves those who make such claims reaching for what ever they may be able to interpret to make their point. Interestingly, the video mentions the fact that history shows that Theodora was the mother of Pope Paschal I, who built this particular church in honor of her. Here is the point: Theodora, like many other women who were associated with a priest or bishop, usually the wife of said individual, often times held an honorary title such as “episcopa” or “presbytera”. Never was it understood that these titles in anyway denoted ordination

The video quotes two early church fathers, not to demonstrate their support of women priests, which there is no such support, but to simply say that these two fathers may have had a bias against women in general. The quotes are purported as being from Augustine and another from Cyprian or Origen, I don’t recall at the moment. It is possible that they said what the video said they said, but the viewer would not know because as far as I could tell, forgive me if I missed it, there were no references given for any honest inquirer to double check the primary source. On the contrary, it may have been beneficial for the video to actually quote the church fathers and ecumenical councils in order to show that women were not permitted to the clergy, denoting ordination (holy orders) or to show what the function of a Deaconess in the Church is. The following are some of the quotations that could have been used by the video to give a better historical picture”

The Early Church Fathers

Tertullian

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Hippolytus

"When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation [sacrifice of the mass] and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

The Didascalia

"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).

"Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them" (ibid., 3:16).

"[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ" (ibid., 3:9).

"A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen into the order of widows" (ibid., 8:25).

"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" (ibid., 8:28).

St. John Chrysostom

"Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church...let the entire female sex retire." [On the Priesthood" 2.2]

"Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it." [On the Priesthood" 3.9]

Epiphanius of Salamis

"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).

In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. "Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," [Gal.3:"28]

The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white. The first time I have seen this verse applied in this manner in history was used by a heretical group, not the early Christians.

Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon

Ecumenical Council of Nicea Canon 19 (XIX): “… Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same from be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.”

There is more to this canon but suffice it to say that when the Paulianists came within the fold of the Catholic Church there was a question as to those who were serving among their clergy whether they would be able to retain their position among the clergy within the Catholic Church. It was affirmed in this canon that those who were among the clergy from the Paulianists were to be examined and when found acceptable were to be baptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church. Here in the text presented, we see that there were deaconesses among them as well, but they were not ordained in the same sense as the clergy and were to be numbered among the laity. The significance of this canon, besides the universal application of it in every diocese of the Catholic Church, is that the role of deaconess was not considered a part of the sacrament of ordination. Not only that but history shows that this role was characterized by a vow of celibacy, either by a woman that was not married or a widow, and the age requirement was at least 40 years of age.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon Canon 15 (XV) “A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her, and has continued for a time in ministry, she shall despise the Grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man who is united to her.”

Interestingly, even though they did not receive the laying on of hands in the manner of ordination, they received a laying on of hands for a blessing setting them apart for this special ministry. The primary ministry of these deaconesses was to prepare women for baptism, teaching them in accordance with the faith. This was the extent of the role of the deaconess in the early church.

Scripture

Many of the verses which were used by the video are interpreted by these fathers and councils in a way that is contrary to the conclusions in the video. We will take a brief and concise look at some of these passages starting with Galatians 3:28 which was quoted by a heretical group in support of ordaining woman by St. Epiphanius in his writing Against Heresies.

Gal.3:28: "There is not among you Jew or Greek, there is not among you slave or free, there is not among you male or female: for we all are in Christ Jesus."

Any time someone shares a verse from Scripture it should always be our habit to at least extend the verses. Gal. 3:26-29: “For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is not among you Jew or Greek, there is not among you slave or free, there is not among you male or female: for we all are in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.” The general context for this section is similar to that which can be found in the book of Romans. Paul’s point is to address the judaizers who claimed that in order to be children of Abraham one had to follow the law, and in this case everyone had to become Jews before they were to become Christians. For it is by faith in Christ, not by the work of Torah, that makes us all children of God. Through baptism, which is the rite of Christian initiation which replaces circumcision as prescribed by the law, that unites us to Christ. Circumcision was laid aside which was particular to males. For God is not the God of the Jews only, but of Gentiles too. For whether one is a Jew or a Greek, they both can come to Christ by faith. For neither ethnicity, social status, or sex precludes the possibility of finding salvation by faith in Christ. I would have to agree with St. Epiphanius who addressed the heretics in misusing this passage to support their illicit practice of ordaining women.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35a: “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”

I have already addressed this passage extensively as well as some of the surrounding texts but I wanted to reinforce a few ideas since this verse was used by the video. It was claimed in the video that this was addressing a local issue or custom, however, scripture states that Paul is writing them “a command of the Lord” which he enforces “in all the churches of the saints”. This point is reinforced by John Wesley’s insight on verse 36: “Are ye of Corinth either the first or the only Christians? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches.” But how is it understood that a woman is not to “speak” and in what manner is she “to be in subjection” particularly since Paul assumes that women will pray and prophesy within the assembly? In what since did Wesley give it in his Notes? “By way of teaching in public assemblies… To the man whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation.” In my previous response concerning the meanings of  the phrase “as even the law says” I had proposed that “The universal application of this passage is also seen in the reference “as even the law says” where by he is applying something concerning the law in order to offer further support of the ordinance. Perhaps this infers that the priests of God, who served in the Mosaic Covenant, were appointed from among the men of Israel – I admit that the meaning of the expression is not yet clear, but that this sense is not completely without merit.” In the light of further reflection I would like to make a new proposal. The phrase “as even the law says” harkens back to the law or Torah, which is the Pentateuch, containing the first five books of the Old Testament. It is in Genesis where we find the concept of submission. Genesis 3:16-19 “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat you food until you returned to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

We had just read in the Apostolic Constitutions where it was understood that this language concerning the relationship between man and woman in marriage is still in effect: “[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just [or right] to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16].” What is interesting about this section in Genesis is that even though it is claimed by Nazarenes that this effect of the fall is changed where as all the other effects are not reversed. Perhaps none of them have been reversed, but rather redeemed. For how is this submission expressed by those two great apostles Peter and Paul. 1 Peter 3:1a, 5-6 “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands…the holy women of the past… were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.”  It is Paul’s language that I find most interesting particularly as it pertains to the role of the priesthood and the ordained ministry as overseers of the church. Ephesians 5:22-25   “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” Here we see Paul talking about the mystery concerning the relation of Christ to his church, and the church to Christ. In using this profound mystery he connects this dynamic to that of marriage. The role of the ordained must be able to take care of his own house, and then they will be able to properly govern in the church as overseers. The point of these passages is to demonstrate that not only did God nor reverse the temporal effects of the fall such as death, toil, pain, etc, rather he redeems them. For it was with great toil, pain, and death that Christ suffered for us in his passion and crucifixion. There is no evidence in Scripture that this creation order, and redeemed order of headship as an image and type of the New Testament church, has been changed or revoked. This view of “as even the law says” makes sense in view of what immediately follows: “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.” Given the limited scope of this particular passage in 1 Corinthians it would be better to appeal to a more pointed text such as we find in 1 Timothy, the next verse that is mentioned by the video.

1 Timothy 2: 11-15 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

The video doesn’t fully address this passage much at all but rather appeals to a context concerning Gnosticism and focuses upon the word ‘learn’ and “have authority’. I must add that whatever one tries to make ‘learn’ and ‘authority’ to mean it is clear that they can’t violate the ‘silence’, “all submissiveness” and that they are “not permitted to teach or to have authority over men.” Whatever positive spin one wishes to place upon ‘learn’ or no matter how confused one can make the term “authority” what follows in the passage takes us back to Genesis. Whatever attempts are used to subvert the plain meaning of Scripture whether it is to focus upon and confuse a single word or to appeal to Gnosticism so generally without showing the relevance of the claim one must not be distracted from the general textual context to which we now turn. The language of ‘learn’ and ‘all submissiveness’ is reflective of 1 Corinthians “…should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.” What was implicit in the “as even the law says” phrase is made more explicit to the direct appeal to Adam and Eve by name in 1 Timothy. The point of Adam’s formation first is an appeal to the pre-fall created order and so by this point Paul takes the axe to the argument that it is only a post-fall condition. Once again the Apostolic Constitutions follows Paul’s argument: “it is not just [or right] to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children.” Next Paul goes one step further and states that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived…”. Gen 3:13b “The woman said. ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” This is rather interesting. God told Adam that it was because he “listened to your [his] wife” and followed along that he was to incur the punishments. Paul states that he will not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man, and then mentions that the woman was deceived and in Genesis we find that Adam listened to his wife followed her teaching and placed himself under her ‘authority’. In other words, Paul could be saying that Eve was not being submissive by both taking the serpents word over Adams and then by influencing him to listen to her in the matter. This was a role reversal against the created order. This makes sense out of Paul’s next comment: “Yet woman will be saved through bearing children…”, that is to say that she reverts back to the created order. This language of bearing children appeals back to Genesis concerning the pain of child birth, one of the temporal post-fall conditions along with being subordinate to her husband. This language also is used by the Apostolic Constitutions were it states that “she was separated for the procreation of children”. This discussion is left relatively untouched by the video which I considered to violently weaken its attempts.

Jesus and the Culture

I wanted to wrap up this presentation by reasoning with the argument that it was for the sake of culture that Jesus only choose men. The Didascalia explains my point: "For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]). It is claimed by the video that Jesus only chose men because of the culture. If this was the case, then he would only be half right. The chosen people would have been less inclined to follow a woman, but in the case of women in the Old Testament it would not be too hard to see God doing it again, unless of course those roles were different in kind from that of his twelve, which I believe they were. The pagans would be much more receptive since there were many women priestesses in that culture among the gentiles. Even with this in mind Jesus often went against “social norms” concerning women and Samaritans, etc. I personally don’t think that this appeal to culture was too much for God to handle. We are talking about the same Jesus who contributed to himself the divine name of God incurring Jews to pick up stones in holy horror. This is the same Jesus who lost many disciples by teaching that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.