UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH
Leslie McFall
CONTENTS
PART THREE: THE EARLY CHURCH
5.1 THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS
5.2 THE ATTITUDE OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
1 CLEMENT: THE LETTER OF THE ROMANS TO THE CORINTHIANS
IGNATIUS bishop of Antioch (ca. AD 98&emdash;117; or, 117-138)
POLYCARP bishop of Smyrna (died at 86 years ca. AD 155-160)
CLEMENT of Alexandria (AD 153-217)
TERTULLIAN of Carthage (AD 145-213):
HIPPOLYTUS (AD 235)
ORIGEN (AD 185-254) (A student of Clement and probably his successor as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria)
DIDYMUS THE BLIND (AD 398)
AMBROSIASTER (ca. AD 375)
IV COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, AD 398.
EPIPHANIUS of Cyprus (AD 403)
CHRYSOSTOM (AD 347-407)
Apostolic Church Order (= The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles) (Beginning of 4th cent. in Egypt).
Apostolic Constitutions (dated AD 380):
Didascalia Apostolorum
Testamentum Domini (c. 475)
______________________________________________
PART THREE: THE EARLY CHURCH
For the past 2000 years the unanimous conclusion of all those who have seriously investigated the practice of the Christian Church from New Testament times until today is that women were never given positions of leadership over men. "From the beginnings of Christianity . . . . There is no evidence . . . that they exercised leadership roles in the community."
5.1 THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS
Jesus did not call any woman to leave her home or occupation and follow Him or to become one of the Twelve or the Seventy disciples.
Jesus did not always follow Jewish customs with regard to women. His disciples marvelled that He talked to a Samaritan woman, and one who was on her own. He ignored Jewish impurity laws when the woman who suffered from haemorrhages touched him. This should have made Him unclean for the rest of that day. No one could make Him unclean. Again, He allowed a sinful (probably a prostitute) woman to wash his feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee much to the latter's consternation. He refused to wash his hands ritually before meals. He pardoned the woman caught in the act of adultery who ought to have been stoned according to Jewish law. He does not hesitate to depart from the Torah in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond.
Jesus' attitude towards women was in stark contrast to that of His age, but in conformity with His creation of men and women and the roles they were to fulfil. He comes across as a man who deliberately carried on with His own agenda for changing the whole life of the Jewish nation. He lived in a Jewish environment but He was not of it, any more than His Kingdom was. He knew His relationship vis-à-vis the nation: He was the Prophet foretold by Moses and the nation was to listen to him, its new Leader. As Leader He had all power and authority from His Father to change anything and inaugurate a new Kingdom on earth which would eventually cover it as the waters cover the seas. The Kingdom He set up was founded on the headship of His Father, His own headship, and the headship of man. Nothing He said or did undermined these three headships. He always worked within these God-ordained headships. This would at once explain why the Lord did not appoint His own mother to be one of the Twelve, and also why Judas was replaced by a man who never appears by name in the Gospel records, when there were so many women candidates to choose from.
The explanation for this apparent discrimination is that Jesus, as Head of the Church, would not undermine His own endorsement of the headship of man. Behind all Jesus did (and His Apostles) stood the duties and responsibilities of man's headship. That principle is paramount and accounts for all their actions and decisions. Despite the fact that His mother was so closely associated with the mystery of His incarnation, and therefore, was a prime witness to who He was, she was never invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact, no doubt, led the Apostles and the Church Fathers to present her as the example of Christ's will as regards elevation to positions of authority in His Church. If He would not advance His own mother to any position of prominence we must look to the headship of man for the explanation.
Never once did Jesus place a woman in authority over a man. Never once did He call upon His Apostles or disciples to submit to His mother's superior knowledge about Him, and learn from her, or accord her some special honour or place in the Church&emdash;present or future. No king or Roman emperor would put his mother at such a distance from himself as Jesus did with His mother. While He honoured His mother He did not treat her as a man: she was a woman, and as such was in a love-headship relation to man at all times. In this He was true to His own principles. He made no exceptions. He showed no weakness in carrying forward His plans for His Church's authority structures. He showed no special favours to important women in His life. The unknown Matthias is given Judas' vacant place and more capable women are passed over.
Jesus shows by example that men must lead men. Nothing in His government of His Church, as expressed through the New Testament writings, violates that principle. Wherever women join in the work of the Great Commission they do so in the role that He assigned to them on the day He created woman&emdash;to be a suitable helper to man. When we approach the writings of the New Testament from this perspective there is no confusion about the Lord's will regarding how He intends His Church to be governed.
When Jesus upbraided His disciples for their unbelief and hardness of heart for not believing the witnesses to His resurrection, He deliberately excluded the witness of the many women who saw Him, preferring, in keeping with the gift of leadership and the headship of Man, to refer to the three male witnesses&emdash;the two on the road to Emmaus and Peter. When God set up the Law only male witnesses (two or three) could take the life of another male. Women were not included as witnesses. This explains why in Paul's list of witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus he, too, deliberately excluded the women, because according to God's arrangement, they were not valid witnesses. Paul does not mention the two Emmaus witnesses, but mentions Peter who was the first male to see Jesus after His resurrection, then the Eleven, then James, then 500 brothers, and lastly Paul himself. All the witnesses are males. This selection of witnesses is in conformity to God's revealed will and shows up the ignorance of those who translated the New Revised Standard Version who translated the "500 brothers" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 as, "500 brothers and sisters," thereby halving the number of males witnesses.
On the cross Jesus transferred His responsibility for His mother (as the firstborn following the death of His father, Joseph) to John the Apostle. His mother was not head of the family. In this Jesus was consistent in His acknowledgement of the headship of man.
Jesus' understanding of the headship which He (as co-Creator) gave to Man, and man's role as leader of his family, comes out in His challenge to all men to put His claims on their lives before any other relationship they might have. Jesus is to come before a man's family relationships. He is challenged to give up the closest relationship he has to another human being, namely, his wife, if that comes before obeying Christ's will in everything. That is how dominant His claim to the full attention of all men is put. Jesus never tells the wife to give up her husband, because her headship relationship, if fully implemented (i.e., if she obeys her husband's will in everything), is not in competition with her relationship to the Lord Jesus, whereas in the case of men, anything that interferes with his total obedience to obey the will of the Lord Jesus is detrimental to Christ's headship. Man's first allegiance is to obey God by obeying Christ. Woman's first allegiance is to obey God by obeying Christ, by obeying her husband. It is through obedience to her husband's will that she pleases her Lord and God. Because the husband is the head of his wife he cannot put himself under a life-long obligation to obey his wife in everything. That would be a denial of his biological birthright. He would cease to reflect "the image and glory of God" in such an obligation/arrangement. If he submits to the authority of his wife he becomes a disgrace to his gender and a failure in the task set for him by his Creator.
We have shown that the principles Jesus followed have governed God's relationship with man from the creation of the world. Throughout the entire history of the world God has made man the head of the family, and He has laid on him the responsibility to govern the human family and to bring its worship to Him. That responsibility has never been lifted from his shoulders. The Covenant which God made with Abraham had as its outward sign the circumcision of all males. The woman, by virtue of her unity with man, was included in the Covenant, and through the worship of her head (her husband) she honoured God in her life. Sarah was not given any special part to play in the worship service. In the way the whole sacrificial system was set up in the Tabernacle (under God's close supervision) and later in the Temple, women were never allowed to lead the worship service. Indeed, they were given no special part to play in the whole system. They were, like Sarah and all the godly women going back to Eve, participants in worship through their husbands.
When the synagogue system was introduced it mirrored the system that prevailed in the Temple service; women did not have an active part to play at any stage of the service. When we come to the churches set up by the Apostles we find a similar situation; women are commanded to be silent. There is a consistency in all of God's dealings with mankind from the creation to the establishment of Christ's Church; men alone are to be the vocal, active worshippers, and women and daughters are to share in that worship through their head and male relatives. The consistency in God's dealings with His people can be explained only on the basis of headship relationships which govern the entire universe. So whatever the Church does it must never violate any individual man's right to be the sole representative of his family's worship. He is to lead that worship at all times and in all places. Geography or climate or culture must never impede the implementation of this principle either in a so-called Christian country or when the Gospel is taken out into all the world; this principle must dominate all authority structures and worship.
God's dealings with mankind from the creation of the world show another aspect of His relationship with His people. While the formal worship mankind owes as a duty toward Him is to be conducted solely by men, with the women as active, but silent, participants, He has given both men and women spiritual gifts to be used in His service outside the context of formal worship. Although we have mention of only four prophetesses in the entire history of God's people from Adam to Ezra, it is sufficient to indicate God's desire to build up His people's relationship through the ministry of fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. However, even here, He acknowledges His own gift of headship to man by requiring the women to wear a covering on their heads when praying and prophesying to Him. That physical distinction must not be lightly removed or replaced by some other symbol. What water is to Baptism, and bread and wine to Communion, so the head-covering is the symbol of woman's authority. Since Christians have no authority to change the symbols used in Baptism and Communion, so neither do they have authority from Christ to exchange the head-covering on women for some other symbol. If a king gives a messenger a letter to deliver to his people, and the messenger opens it and does not like what he reads, and decides to alter the text to suit the mood of the people, what will the king think of that audacity? Christians are messengers of the Gospel of Christ and it is incumbent on them not to alter the text to suit their congregations or the fallen world outside, or to make the Gospel more palatable for them to receive. The Church only undermines its authority if it interferes with its contents because God's fallen creatures will be lured in by an attractive package which presents a false claim on their lives. Conforming to the expectations of the world is no way to uphold the headship of man, never mind the headship of Christ. Fidelity to the truth must not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency or pragmatism. There will always be a Church of Christ on the earth, so Christians can be faithful to the will of the Head of the Church, knowing that He is building it out of unlikely material.
Given the totality of God's relationship with His people down through the ages it is patently clear what His expressed will is on the matter of positions of leadership and participation in the formal worship service, namely, men alone are to lead and men alone are to participate; the women are to be led, and the women are to be silent in the churches. That is what being submissive is all about.
Throughout the writings of the Apostles we see this principle in operation, and in the writings of the Church Fathers we see this principle being kept sight of in all their rulings.
5.2 THE ATTITUDE OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
The Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a declaration entitled, "On the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood" in which it states:
The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first century, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church. . . . But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed&emdash;especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions&emdash;this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.
The same conviction animates mediaeval theology, . . . Since that period and up to our own time, it can be said that the question has not been raised again, for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance. The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. . . .
The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East.
The statements of this Declaration can be substantiated by actual quotations from the Church Fathers themselves. The Declaration records the statements of Irenaeus (AD 202), Tertullian (AD 220), Firmilian of Caesarea, Origen (AD 254) and Epiphanius (AD 403).
Irenaeus describes part of the Gnostic liturgy of the Marcosians in which women offer the cup at the altar; Marcus is depicted as a charlatan and the women in question as deranged.
Tertullian satirizes the lightness and lack of seriousness of heretical groups by mocking their lack of structure. Another proof of their lack of genuineness is the arrogance of their women who dare to teach, refute, exorcise, promise healing, and perhaps even baptize.
The letter of Firmilian recounts the tale of a woman of the generation before him who exercised prophetic powers and performed baptism and eucharist in the accepted way and with the correct formulae, apparently not in a heretical church but in a situation well known to the bishop. He, of course, considered such liturgical actions invalid. This occasion may be considered exceptional.
Origen's remarks on 1 Cor 14:34-35 concern the right to prophesy or teach in the church meeting. They are directed against the Montanists' women prophets.
Epiphanius' account of the prophecy and leadership of Priscilla and Quintilla speaks of the Montanists' practice of admitting women "into the clergy" as presbyters and bishops but does not specify what the offices entailed. His description of the Collyridians is more detailed. In this case the women assemble and perform priestly functions in honour of the Virgin Mary.
Of these seven references cited by the Declaration, three concern the exercise of a eucharistic function, two that of baptising, and four that of the authority to preach or teach. There are other texts by some and the same authors, as well as passages in Church Order collections such as the Apostolic Constitutions, which condemn women for teaching and administering the sacraments.
Official ministry for women was always considered unacceptable with the exception of the limited role of deaconess admitted by Epiphanius for the baptism and visiting of women&emdash;the same role assigned to them by the contemporary Apostolic Constitutions.
The only reason ever given by the Church Fathers for rejecting women ministers was Scripture. Their arguments are based on four texts: Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8; 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which base submissive behaviour of women on the argument from the order of creation and the Fall. Origen's commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 precludes women from prophesying in church, allowing them to prophesy (as in 1 Cor 11:5) only outside the assembly. He also uses 1 Tim 2:12; Titus 2:3 and Genesis 3:16.
Tertullian in de Baptismo 17. 4-5 invokes the authority of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as he does in Contra Marcionem 5.8.11, where he forbids women to speak in the assembly even in order to learn. Again in de Virginibus Velandis 9.1, he rules out any priestly function for women on the basis of 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12.
The Apostolic Constitutions 3.6 quotes 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 11:3 against women teaching in the church, and 3.9 cites 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Genesis 3:16 against women having any part in the priesthood or baptising.
Epiphanius writes against the Montanists who justified having women bishops and presbyters on the authority of Galatians 3:28, and he quotes against them all four texts to refute this misuse of Galatians 3:28 (Panarion 49.2-3).
The Church Fathers in pondering these four texts constantly appeal to a hierarchy of authority between man and woman&emdash;the headship of man. Always they argue from this fixed creation principle: woman cannot be a priest because she is subordinate to man; priesthood is therefore seen in terms of authority, and women are not to rule over men. We find no other primary grounds on which they condemned the practice of heretical sects. Sometimes they added to this primary reason others to do with the constitution of women or their inferior status, or some other such secondary reasons, but always their primary reason is based on Scripture and the fact that Jesus did not accept any women into his inner circle of Apostles when there was no moral barrier to Him doing so, if He had so desired. Both example and teaching guided them in their rock-solid refusal to admit women into any positions of authority over men in Christ's Church.
Thomas Aquinas uses the same four texts for his exclusion of women from the priesthood.
The Vatican Declaration is correct in stating that the Churches of the East have also never ordained women as bishops or presbyters. Some in the third or fourth century, in the Eastern part of the Church (but not Egypt), permitted women deacons to do women's work, but the office died out in the twelfth century. But deaconesses were not accepted in the West until centuries later and not in great numbers. This would fit the interpretation that in 1 Timothy 3, it is the wives of male deacons that is in view there. But this is not the place to go into that issue here (see 4.5). Suffice to say that office-bearers in the Old Testament Church had to have wives that reflected the priest's privileged position. He could not marry certain categories of women that the ordinary male Israelite worshipper was allowed to marry. There may be a parallel between these two sets of offices.
The following influential Church Fathers had no doubt that women should remain silent throughout the formal gathering of the Church to worship God, and it was the only known practice since the time of the Apostles: Irenaeus (AD 202), Tertullian (AD 145-220), Origen (AD 254), Ambrosiaster (4th cent.), Didymus (AD 398), Epiphanius (AD 403), Chrysostom (AD 347-407), and Jerome (AD 345-420). Besides these witnesses to the Apostolic tradition there are the written canons of how the Church should structure itself, and in all of them the silence and covering of the head is taught. They are dated from the 3rd to 5th century: Apostolic Church Order, Apostolic Constitutions, Didascalia Apostolorum, and Testamentum Domini.
Can the Church decide to alter the teaching and example of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers&emdash;an unbroken tradition of 2000 years&emdash;and ignore the principle of Man's headship so as to permit women to speak in the Church and exercise authority over men? Some argue that Jesus was a prisoner of His own culture and could not entrust positions of leadership to women at that time. The Gospels, however, show that He broke with the prejudices of his time, by openly contravening the discriminations practised with regard to women. You cannot get a more serious breach than ignoring the purity laws governing women's lives. We have also to explain the Apostles' refusal to appoint women to positions of leadership in the Greek milieu. Clement of Alexandria (AD 215) says that the wives of the Apostles, whom he calls "fellow-ministers," ministered to their own sex and not to men.
In what follows we shall look at the practice and teaching of the early Church Fathers. Since they form a direct link with the Apostolic Church they are an important witness to how the text was understood. If their understanding of Paul's tradition and teaching is unanimous then it cannot be easily dismissed. In the quotations that follow I have collected evidence that relates to the two universal Church practices of (1) covering the head, and (2) keeping silent in Church.
1 CLEMENT: THE LETTER OF THE ROMANS TO THE CORINTHIANS
The date of this letter (known as 1 Clement) cannot be later than AD 95-97 because 44:3-5 refers to leaders appointed by the Apostles still in position in the church. It was written by Clement, who was in all probability the leader of the church in Rome. The occasion was a revolt (sta&sij, referred to nine times in the letter) by the younger men who ousted their older leaders (presbyters, 47.6; 51.1; 57:1) in the Corinthian church. Clement of Alexandria (AD 153-217) regarded the letter as Scripture, such was the high regard with which it was held in the post-Apostolic age. It was even made part of some copies of the New Testament (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus). It is listed in the fourth century Apostolic Canons as part of the New Testament. In Alexandria, Didymus the Blind counted it as part of the canon.
In content it is an appeal for peace and concord, because the same kinds of problems that Paul encountered in Corinth in the 50s, a generation previously, have sprung up again. I shall be selective in quoting extracts from 1 Clement as they relate to the topic of this work. Throughout, the work is addressed to the "brothers" (62.3, "to men who . . . have diligently studied the oracles and teaching of God") just as all the NT writings are.
"You instructed the young to think temperate and proper thoughts; you charged the women to perform all their duties with a blameless, reverent, and pure conscience, cherishing their own husbands, as is right; and you taught them to abide by the rule of obedience, and to manage the affairs of their household with dignity and all discretion" (1)."
"Let us guide our women toward that which is good: let them reveal a disposition to purity worthy of admiration; let them exhibit a sincere desire to be gentle; let them demonstrate by their silence (dia_ th=j sigh=j) the moderation of their tongue; let them show their love, without partiality and in holiness, equally toward all those who fear God" (21.6-7).
In order to impress on the younger men that they should re-submit to the older men/leaders, Clement draws on the analogy of an army.
"Let us consider the soldiers who serve under commanders, how precisely, how readily, how obediently they execute orders. Not all are prefects or tribunes or centurions or captains of fifty and so forth, but each in his own rank executes the orders given by the emperor and the commanders. The great cannot exist without the small, nor the small without the great. There is a certain blending of everything, and therein lies the advantage. Let us take our body as an example. The head without the feet is nothing; likewise the feet without the head are nothing. Even the smallest parts of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body, yet all the members work together and unite in mutual subjection, that the whole body may be saved. And so in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift" (37-38.1).
Clement urges the rebellious young men, "You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the revolt, must submit (u9pota&ghte) to the presbyters and accept discipline leading to repentance, bending the knee of your heart. Learn how to subordinate (u9pota&ssesqai) yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found small but included in the flock of Christ than to have a pre-eminent reputation and yet be excluded from his hope" (57.2; cf. 63.1, "submit [proskliqh=nai, to join one's self to, follow as an adherent, cleave closely to] to those who are the leaders of our souls"). Clement sends three "trustworthy and prudent men" with the letter to Corinth in the hope that they and his letter will bring order back into the Corinthian church (63.3).
IGNATIUS bishop of Antioch (ca. AD 98&emdash;117; or, 117-138)
Arrested in Antioch to be taken to Rome to be thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, Ignatius wrote to churches along his death route. One of his letters was to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had personally known John the Apostle. To Ignatius, the false teachers within the churches posed a greater threat than the pagan society without, and this concern dominates his seven letters.
To Polycarp he writes, "Tell my sisters to love the Lord and to be content with their husbands physically and spiritually. In the same way command my brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to love their wives, as the Lord loves the church (cf. Eph 5:25, 29)" (5).
POLYCARP bishop of Smyrna (died at 86 years ca. AD 155-160)
He was a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. In his only surviving letter to the Philippians he wrote,
Then instruct your wives to continue in the faith delivered to them and in love and purity, cherishing their own husbands in all fidelity and loving all others equally in all chastity, and to instruct the children with instruction that leads to the fear of God. The widows must think soberly about the faith of the Lord and pray unceasingly for everyone and stay far away from all malicious talk, slander, false testimony, love of money, and any kind of evil, knowing that they are God's altar, and that all sacrifices are carefully inspected and nothing escapes him, whether thoughts or intentions or 'secrets of the heart' (4.2-3).
CLEMENT of Alexandria (AD 153-217) wrote in The Instructor that the woman should be veiled when she goes to church, "since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."
TERTULLIAN of Carthage (AD 145-213)
Referring to Paul's teaching wrote: ". . . . when prescribing on women silence in the church, that they speak not the mere purpose of learning [teaching, discendi] (though he [Paul] has already shown that even they have the right to prophesy, when he insists that the woman who prophesies must be covered with a veil), it is from the law that he draws his sanction that women should be under obedience."
"It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office."
Tertullian in his Homily on Baptism refers to "a certain female viper from the Cainite sect" who recently won converts to her anti-baptism teaching. He describes her as a woman "who had no right to teach even correctly." This is a direct allusion to 1 Tim 2:12. In chapter 17 he again refers to this woman teacher:
But the impudence of that woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently not going to arrogate to her[self] the right to baptize as well&emdash;unless perhaps some new serpent appears, like the original one, so that as that woman abolished baptism, some other should of her own authority confer it. But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named, claim the example of Thecla for allowing woman to teach and to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul's reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position. How could we believe that Paul should give a female power to teach and to baptize, when he did not allow a woman even to learn by her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands at home.
The reference to the "Acts of Paul" is interesting because here was a work by a presbyter purporting to give further information on Paul's teaching in which Paul commissions a woman called Thecla (who tried to attach herself to him) to go and preach, baptize and teach in Seleucia. The presbyter was deposed for misrepresenting Paul's teaching. It is thought that the "Acts of Paul" were composed in the mid-second century which shows that Paul's teaching was under continuous attack well after he wrote 1 Corinthians. It is also clear from Tertullian's writings that he understood Paul to say that no female may speak in the Church because it was the universal tradition since the time of the Apostles.
Tertullian makes it plain that the supreme right to administer baptism belongs to the bishop, and after him the presbyters and deacons, and in emergencies laymen have the right, "for that which is received on equal terms can be given on equal terms." Baptism can be administered by all men but not by a woman.
One thing which galled the Church Fathers about the Montanist movement was that women were allowed leadership roles. Maximilla became the de facto leader after the death of Montanus (who began to prophecy either in AD 172 or 156-57, with two women, Prisca and Maximilla, as his assistants).
If the Corinthian women prophesied without covering their heads this could have been a misguided action rather than a show of early feminist reaction to Paul's teaching on Man's headship.
Tertullian in his treatise, De Cultu feminarum, comes out very strongly against any ministerial function for women:
Knowest thou not that thou art Eve?&emdash;thou art the gate of the devil. Thou didst break the seal of that famous tree, thou didst beguile him whom the devil had not power to approach; thou with fatal ease didst dash in pieces the image of God. Your wage, that is death, was the cause that the Son of God must die.
HIPPOLYTUS (AD 235) speaks of "victims of error . . . captivated by wretched women named Priscilla and Maximilla whom they supposed to be priestesses."
ORIGEN (AD 185-254) was a student of Clement and probably his successor as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. "He [Paul] does not allow women to teach or lord it over man. He does desire women to be adept at teaching, so as to urge chastity upon young women, not upon young men. It is indeed unbecoming for a woman to be a teacher of men. But women should urge young women to be chaste and to love their husbands and children."
Origen was scathing about the Montanist prophetesses:
Although all speak and are allowed to speak when they are granted a revelation, "the women," he says, "should keep silence in the churches." They in no way fulfil this command, those disciples of women, who chose as their master Priscilla and Maximilla, not Christ, the Spouse of the Bride. But, let us be good-natured players, and cope with the arguments which they judge convincing. The Evangelist Philip, they say, had four daughters, and all prophesied. If they prophesied, what is strange, they ask, if our prophetesses&emdash;as they are called&emdash;also prophesy? Let us then resolve this difficulty. First, since you say: "Our women prophesied," show in them the sign of prophesy. Second, if the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in the Acts of the Apostles. Much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah was a prophetess. Mary [Miriam], the sister of Aaron, tambourine in hand, led the choir of women. There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches to the people, as did Jeremias and Isaias. Hulda, who was a prophetess, did not speak to the people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home. The Gospel itself mentions a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser [Asher]; but she did not speak publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to prophesy and show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Mary [Miriam], the prophetess, spoke, she was leading a choir of women. For: "It is improper for a woman to raise her voice at meetings," and : "I am not giving permission for a woman to teach" and even less "to tell a man what to do." Although those given the above say more categorically that a woman does not have the right by her word to guide a man, I shall further prove this position from another text. "Bid the old women to behave themselves as befits holy women, teaching what is good, in order to form young women in wisdom," and not simply "Let them teach." Certainly, women should also "teach what is good," but men should not sit and listen to a woman, as if there were no men capable of communicating the word of God. "If they have any question to ask, they should ask their husbands at home: it does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice at meetings." It seems to me that the expression "their husbands" does not refer only to husbands; for if that were the case, either virgins would speak in the assembly, or they would have nobody to teach them, and the same is true for widows. But could "their husbands" not also mean a brother, a relative, or a son? In short, let a woman learn from the man who is her own, taking "man" in its generic sense, as the counterpart of "woman." "For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly," no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. "A woman in an assembly": clearly this abuse is denounced as improper&emdash;an abuse for which the entire assembly is responsible."
Origen also objected to any public role for females. He insisted that their women prophets only speak in private, not in the assemblies.
On Origen's use of "man" in a generic sense A. C. Wire noted:
As to which women are speaking, Paul's regulation refers to women generally. The Greek term with which the sentence begins, "the women," could mean "wives" in a conjugal context, but there is no indication of that here. In a separate sentence six clauses later he does refer to "their own men" of whom they should ask questions, and this is often read "husbands." Yet the phrase is appropriate not only for wives, since daughters, widows, and women slaves are just as subordinate to the man of the house. Nor can we assume that Paul excludes from his restrictions the exceptional woman who lives alone or with other women just because he concedes that women may ask men questions at home.
His reference to women is a good indication that it is not a select few who speak in the church but women in general, or at least women of various stations.
DIDYMUS THE BLIND (AD 398)
"The Apostle says in First Timothy: 'I do not permit women to teach,' and again in First Corinthians: 'Every woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head dishonours her head.' He means that he does not permit a woman to write books impudently, on her own authority, nor to teach in the churches, because by doing so, she does violence to her own source, man: for 'the head of woman is man, and the head of man is Christ.' The reason for this silence imposed on women is obvious: woman's teaching in the beginning caused considerable havoc to the human race; for the Apostle writes, 'It was not the man who was deceived, but the woman.'"
AMBROSIASTER (ca. AD 375)
"Women know, indeed, that in the house of God men have the first place and that women there ought to pray, keeping their tongues quiet, but opening their ears to learn how the mercy of God has triumphed through Christ over death, which established its reign through Eve. Since they are veiled to manifest this subjection, if they dare to speak in church it would be a shame, for in this action they would show their lack of humility. Since in the arrogance of women their husbands are also exposed to blame, this situation would be equally a cause of criticism for them."
IV COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, AD 398.
The North African bishops directed: "Let not a woman (mulier) presume to teach men in the assembly, even though she be learned and holy."
EPIPHANIUS of Cyprus (AD 403)
"Scripture does not allow women to speak in church or to have authority over men." Epiphanius, when attacking the practices and doctrines of the Montanist sect which promoted women to all church offices, wrote:
They who teach this, what are they but women? And women are by nature slippery, unreliable, and poor in understanding. And so the devil thought well to belch this heresy forth from women. Wherefore the Divine Word allows a woman neither to teach nor to have authority over a man . . . .
Again, writing of deaconesses, who were still in existence in his part of the world, he denies to them the right of exercising any priestly function, for "from the beginning no woman has ever acted as priest before God."
CHRYSOSTOM (AD 347-407)
How, then, can he [Paul] afterwards say, when he writes to Timothy: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men'? This posture refers to the case of a man who is pious, professes the same faith, practices the same wisdom; but, when the man is not a believer and the plaything of error, Paul does not exclude a woman's superiority, even when it involves teaching. Writing to the Corinthians, he says, 'If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, she should not divorce him. Wife, do you not know that you might save your husband?' But how can the believing woman save her unbelieving husband? By instructing, obviously, by teaching, by trying to lead him to the faith, as Priscilla did with Apollos.
The matter is not the same when he [Paul] says: 'I permit no woman to teach." This declaration concerns teaching from the pulpit and giving speeches in public, which belongs to priestly duties. But he does not forbid exhorting and advising in private. Indeed, if that were forbidden, he would not have eulogized this woman [Priscilla] who had conducted herself in this way." And yet you [Paul] forbid a woman to teach; how do you command it here, when elsewhere you say, 'I suffer not a woman to teach'? But mark what he has added: 'nor to usurp authority over the man.' For at the beginning it was permitted to men to teach both men and women. But to women it is allowed to instruct by discourse at home. But they are nowhere permitted to preside, nor to extend their speech to great length, wherefore he adds: 'nor to usurp authority over the man.'
John Chrysostom recognised an authority difference between male and female. He wrote:
The "image" has rather to do with authority, and this only the man has; the woman has it no longer. For he is subjected to no one, while she is subjected to him. . . . Therefore the man is in the "image of God" since he had no one above him, just as God has no superior but rules over everything. The woman, however, is "the glory of man," since she is subjected to him.
I do not agree with Chrysostom over "woman has it [authority] no longer." She never did have the same authority as Adam in her own right, so she could not lose it. After they fell she, through her union with man, partakes of whatever authority he has over the beasts of the field, etc. But apart from this authority that she has as "adam" (Gen 6:1), she also has her own authority as a female (1 Cor 11:10; see 4.4.4). Also, against Chrysostom, we should point out that Man did have someone over him before the Fall because he was subject to God through the prohibition not to eat from one particular Tree, because headship involves loving obedience.
Chrysostom is the odd man out when it comes to abolishing the separation of the sexes when they met in Church for worship. He described the gathering in the "upper room" as an ideal assembly, because of the absence of sex distinction (Acts 1:14). Alluding to the separation of the sexes in the churches of his time, he says this was a regrettable necessity.
Besides these witnesses to the Apostolic tradition we have written codes of how the Church should structure itself, and in all of them the silence and covering of the head is taught. They all come from the 3rd or 4th century:
Apostolic Church Order (= The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles) (Beginning of 4th cent. in Egypt). These Canons excluded women from exercising a ministry in the celebration of the Eucharist.
In one of the Apostolic Canons the apostles are represented as deliberating whether any public function should be assigned to women.
"John said, 'Ye remember, brethren that, when the Master asked for the bread and the cup and blessed them, saying: "This is my Body and my Blood," He allowed not these women to stand with us.' Martha said: 'Because of Mary, for He saw her smiling.' Mary said: 'Not because I laughed, for He had told us before in His teaching that the weak shall be saved by the strong.'"
Again: "It is not proper for a woman to pray standing, but sitting on the ground . . . How can we then, concerning women, order them services unless perhaps that of coming to the help of necessitous women?"
Apostolic Constitutions (dated AD 380):
"We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, but only to pray [silently] and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us, the Twelve, to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not lack them. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters: also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus, Salome, and certain others. For had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself would have commanded these to instruct the people with us. For "if the head of the woman is the man," it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head."
"Now as to women baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the "man be the head of the woman," and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of creation, and leave the principal part to come to the extreme 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." For the principal part of a woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will anyone allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism&emdash;to ordain women to the female deities&emdash;not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John, or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action; as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution."
Didascalia Apostolorum : This book of Church order is probably more valuable seeing that it expresses the general fixed teaching of the Church rather than the views of individual Church Fathers, invaluable though they are. This Church manual influenced the form of other such works. It is very emphatic in its opposition to the public activity of women. Women must not teach (a) because the risen Lord commissioned no woman to preach or baptize; and (b) lest the heathen should despise the doctrine of Christ's suffering because it is given by a woman. The text reads as follows:
"(For when the Gentiles . . . hear) the word of God [neither] as it [ought to be] no[r unto the] building up of [eternal] life, [and especial]ly because by a woman is spoken [that] touching [Christ] incarnate and subject to suffering, in derision they will scoff [rather than] give glory [at the wo]rds of the woman elder; [but she] will be guilty of sin [and] shall [know] that much is [the judgement] in store. [For] the Lord [said], Owing to much [speaking] thou shalt not escape sins(s).
"[It is] not, [then, right] either that women be teachers, [especial]ly touching the name of the Lord and [His redemp]tive passion. For ye have not been appointed, O women, [in order] to teach, and [especial]ly widows, [but only to importune] God. [For the Teacher himself (when)] He sent us [the Twelve] to disciple the Peo[ple and] the Gentiles, having along with [us chosen out] also [female] dis[ciples]&emdash;Mary [Magdal]ene and M[ary of James and Salo[me]&emdash;He did not send them forth with [us] to disciple or (save) the world. [For if it were] needful that women should [teach], our Teacher [himself] would have bidden these along with us to teach.
Let the [widow], then, [recognize] that she is God's altar, and let her [sit still] in her house; let her not with [any pretext] wander about in the houses of the faithful, in order to receive: for neither does God's altar ever wander about anywhere, but is settled in one spot. The widow, then, ought not to wander about among houses: for they who wander about and are shameless, keep not still in their houses because they are not widows but wallets (and care for nothing but to be om. AC)] ready to [receive], (and because they are talkative and om. AC) [tattlers], slanderers . . . counsellors of strife, [shameless], immodest: [and they that are such] are not [found] worthy [of Him who] called them."
"But let a woman rather be devoted to the ministry of women, and a male deacon to the ministry of men."
Testamentum Domini (c. 475)
The contents indicate that deaconesses were to help the bishop. She anointed the women being baptized, and spread a veil hiding their nudity from the bishop. They were also door keepers. Deacons oversaw men and women and saw that good order was maintained among the women in the assembly.
Christian heretical sects honoured women in the way priestesses and vestal virgins were honoured in Greece and Rome. Nearly every founder of a sect had a woman to assist him (e.g., Simon Magnus had Helene, and Montanus had Maximilla). One Montanist sect actually praised Eve for eating the fruit first, and applauded Miriam and the daughters of Philip who publicly expressed the right of women to prophesy. They allowed women to hold the offices of bishops, elders, and deacons, appealing to Paul's word in Galatians 3:28 for support. It was perhaps because of this group that Tertullian spoke with such zeal against women.
END OF SECTION