How We Submit in Three Different Ways

Submission is one of those concepts that everyone talks about, yet few understand fully.

A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that Paul and Peter use different metaphors when discussing submission, and because there are different entities who submit in different ways: Christians within the church submit to each other in one way, husbands and wives submit to each other in another way, and Christians submit to those outside the church in a third way.

The largest amount of information that deals with submission in the New Testament talks about the Body of Christ. Paul spends considerable time describing how the Body of Christ functions, and how the different members work together. 

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others (Rom 12:4-5 NIV).

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink (1 Cor 12:12-13, NIV).

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:26-29, NIV).

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph 4:14-16, NIV).

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Col 3:15-17, NIV).

 

According to the early church writer, Clement of Rome, believers submit to each other through their spiritual gifts. 

Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work (lit. all breathe together) harmoniously together, and are under one common rule (lit. use one subjection) for the preservation of the whole body.  Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift (lit. according as he has been placed in his charism) bestowed upon him.[1] 

How do we submit to each other through our spiritual gifts?
We submit when we allow other members exercise their gifts without disruptions.


This thought is expressed in 1 Cor 14:29-33:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (NIV).

Corinthians were confused about the meaning of the gifts; they thought they were given for their own personal gain.

"For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. … What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor 14:13-17, 26 NIV).

We submit when we choose to use our gifts to serve others, for the spiritual gifts were given for the profit of all (1 Cor 12:7). Because all members in the body submit to one another, even overseers submit to those younger in faith when they exercise their gifts.

 "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. …. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (1 Peter 4:10-11; 5:5, KJV).

However, when talking about marriage, Paul compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church, instead of speaking of the individual members of the church, and for a good reason. The relationship between Christ and Church mirrors that of husband and wife; they become one flesh.

"After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church" (Eph 5:29-32, NIV).

We belong to Jesus. 

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God" (Rom 7:4, NIV).

Just as the church belongs to Jesus, so does a husband and wife belong to each other.

"The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife" (1 Cor 7:4, NIV).

How does the Church submit to Christ? The Church submits to Christ when it speaks truth in love and grows into him in all things.

"Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work" (Eph 4:15-16, NIV).

The Church loses the connection to the head when it clings to the shadows of the law and human commandments instead of coming to Jesus, who is the reality and truth.  

 "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow" (Col 2:16-19, NIV).

Just as Jesus lives to pray and intercede for the Church (Heb 7:25), and the Church lives to pray and bear fruit for God, so does a husband and wife live to please each other.

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband" (1 Cor 7:32-34, NIV).

Hierarchical theologians would have us believe that a husband pleases his wife when he provides for her, and a wife pleases her husband when she cares for the home. That is, however, not the case.

For as our original parents lived and loved in the garden, they did so without care and concern for their material wellbeing; God provided all things for the newly created humans. The existence of sin is the reason Paul recommended singleness, for marriage in a fallen world comes with a lot of concern and worry. Yet, marriage is not the reason we were created; we were created to reflect the glory of God as image bearers and care for the created world.

Because we belong to Jesus, if we lose our connection to the head, the body withers away just as a branch that is not connected to the root.

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." (John 15:5-6, NIV)

What keeps us connected to the head is love. 

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love" (John 15:9, NIV).

In a marriage, love is what connects the head to the body; Paul told husbands to love their wives the way Jesus loves the church.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph 5:25-28, NIV).

We have a tendency to see the obedience the Church owes to Christ as an excuse for husbands to demand their wives follow their every selfish preference. Note that Paul said Christ died to make the Church holy.  The husband must love his wife in the same way as the Christ loved the Church: he must in all things abstain from demanding his wife sin against her own conscience by demanding she follow his preferences.

"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Rom 14:22-23, NIV).

Jesus gave us only one commandment: love and serve another. Jesus expects the same from everyone; he does not show partiality, nor does he prefer one over the other. This is the model the husband should emulate: he should love his wife the way he loves himself and not expect more from his wife than he is willing to do himself.

Because the life of love is that of submission, but not all humans are in Christ, Christians submit to those outside the body in a different way as they do within the body: they submit by doing good. Slaves with harsh master submit by accepting the consequences of doing good; wives with unbelieving husbands submit through their pure and respectful conduct; husbands with unbelieving wives submit through consideration and respect (1 Pet 2-3). All Christians submit to their governments by doing that which is good, and by showing proper respect (Rom 13). In none of the above is a Christian expected, or allowed, to transgress God’s law of loving their neighbors and God with all their beings.

It is a rather sobering to realize that hierarchical theology, by giving husbands and overseers near total power over wives and laity, imposes the submission owed to unbelievers by Christians on the Church and Christian marriage. By admonishing wives and laity (and slaves) to obey, and allowing husbands and overseers to have their way in all things, hierarchical theologians have elevated sin to the throne of the hearts of all believers (Rom 6:12).

Only by returning to biblical equality can we re-learn how to submit to each other within the Body of Christ and in Christian marriage.

---

[1] Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ch. XXXVII-III.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Contradictions and Fallacies # 7

1 Corinthians 14:34-45 has always been the bedrock of complementarism, but these two verses create more problems than they solve.

Contradiction # 5  1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Weinrich connects the verses to Genesis 3:16, but Carson disagrees, and tries to explain the reference to the Law, and Knight attempts to make the word "laleo" a reference to teaching instead of regular speech.

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Carson: p 152

Knight: p 351

Although Tertullian believed women ought to be silenced in the church, he did not know what to make of the reference to the Law.

When enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it.[1]  

By the fourth century, the Law no longer posed a problem, for the inferiority of the woman and the sole guilt of Eve had changed the meaning of Genesis 3:16 from a consequence of sin to a commandment of God. Chrysostom combined 1 Corinthians 14:34 with Genesis 3:16 without discussion and maintained that women should be silent in the Church because “the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded.”[2]

 In the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theology the inferiority of the woman was the reason for her silence. Matthew Henry concluded that women ought to be silent and refrain from teaching in the Church because, “it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her.”[3] Adam Clarke believed women prophesied in the Early Church because of 1 Cor 11:5, but because of the apparent contradiction with 1 Cor 14:34, he concluded that the latter forbade only asking questions, not all speech.[4] Clarke thought “the law” had reference to Genesis 3:16, as did Barnes and Tertullian, but although Tertullian allowed women to pray and prophesy, Barnes concluded that the silencing of women in the Church could not be disputed because the rule was “positive, explicit, and universal.”[5] He equated foreign languages and prophesy with public speaking and therefore they were only for “the male portion of the congregation.” And as to the contradiction between chapters 11 and 14, for Barnes there was none, for he thought Paul was forbidding women from speaking “on every ground.”[6]

D.A. Carson disagrees with Weinrich’s approval of Luther’s habit of connecting Genesis 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 in his essay Silent in the Churches.

By this clause [the law says], Paul is probably not referring to Genesis 3:16, as many suggest, but to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b-24, for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns to on two others occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Corinthians 11.8, 9; 1 Timothy 2:13).[7]

But the new connection is not without problems. The phrase “the law says” is found three times in the New Testament: Rom 3:19, 1 Cor 9:8, and 1 Cor 14:34. Carson concedes that Paul usually provides the actual verse from the Old Testament, which is true of the first two examples, but he believes Paul has already provided the verse (Genesis 2:20-4) in 1 Corinthians 11. Carson believes also that the reference to the Law should be understood as Scripture, which includes the Creation account.[8] However, Genesis 1-3 is not called “the Law” or “Scripture” in the Bible; it is always called “the beginning.”[9] Hence “the law” cannot refer to Genesis 2:20-24. 

Carson recognizes the problem of reconciling 1 Cor 11:3-16 with 14:34-35 wherefore he suggests that the former allows women to prophesy but that the latter forbids them from evaluating prophecies. Because Carson acknowledges that the whole church should participate in the evaluation of teaching (Acts 17:11; Rev 2:2-3) he creates a distinction in which women are (1) allowed to prophesy, but not allowed to evaluate prophecy; and (2) disallowed to teach, but allowed to evaluate teaching. If "the careful weighing of prophecies falls under the magisterial function" of the teaching authority, why does not the evaluation of teaching considering Carson’s belief that teaching is superior to prophesying?[10] 

 Also George W. Knight III recognizes that 1 Cor 11:3-16 allows women to pray and to prophesy in his essay The Family and the Church, but he views 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a prohibition for women to teach in a church setting.  

This is seen in Paul's treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only from speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-5) where congregational "teaching" is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the items listed in verse 26 correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only the first item, "a psalm," not dealt with in these verses] and in particular notice that "teaching" [NASB] in verse 26 is the one-word description for the "speaking" Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34-35). These women are recognized as properly participating in praying and prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign of their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians 11:1-6).[11]

Knight does not explain how the "one-word description" of "teaching" can be "speaking" (laleo) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, considering the word is connected to both tongues and prophecy three times in verses 27-29. Neither does he have a reason why women should learn (manthano) at home when the purpose of prophecy is that all may learn (manthano) at church (v. 31).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is speech. (Laleo is used twenty-four times in chapter 14.) In verses 1-25 Paul explains why the Corinthians should desire to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues; in verses 26-40 he explains the proper way of prophesying and speaking in tongues. Moreover, Paul considered prophesying, which both men and women participated in, equivalent to teaching, for he wrote, “But one who prophesies speaks [laleo] to men for edification [oikodome] and exhortation [paraklesis] and consolation… For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted [parakaleo]” (Cor 14:3, 31, NAS). The purpose of their gathering together, the psalms, teachings, tongues, revelations and interpretations, was edification (oikodome, v. 26). Therefore prophesy was not distinguished from teaching as to its purpose. In addition, exhortation (paraklesis) is equivalent to declaring divine truths - such as the gospel, as seen in Acts 13:15-52, Hebrews 13:22, and 1 Thessalonians 2:2-3 - and people are expected to learn as a result. Since prophesying is a form of teaching, it is impossible that Paul excluded women from teaching, and consequently, the evaluation of prophesy.

---

[1] Tertullian, Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, VIII.

[2] Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily, XXXVII.

[3] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition.

[4] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Adam Clarke's Commentary on the whole Bible.

[5] But if women are not allowed to speak in the church, why did Peter write if “anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11)? A similar prohibition against female speech is not found in his letters.

[6] Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

[7] Piper and Grudem, 152.

[8] Ibid., 148.

[9] See Isaiah 40:2; 41:26; 46:10; Matthew 19:4-9; 24:19-21; Ecclesiastical 3:10-12; Mark 10:3-9; 13:18-19; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:3-4; 1 John 3:8.

[10] Piper and Grudem, 153.

[11] Ibid., 351.     

Why the Catholic Church Does Not Ordain Women and Why They Really Should

The Catholic Church does not ordain women, and there are many reasons for it. Let's look at some of the arguments in favor of the exclusion of women from the priesthood. 

The Catholic News Service writes:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that only men can receive holy orders because Jesus chose men as his apostles and the "apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry." Blessed John Paul II wrote in 1994 that this teaching is definitive and not open to debate among Catholics.”[i]

But the men Jesus chose were not only men, they were Jewish men; when was the “Jewish” dropped from the equation and Gentiles included in the priesthood?

For example, why did Jesus choose Paul (a Jewish man) to become an apostle to the Gentiles and have him appoint overseers in their churches if Gentiles were not eligible for the priesthood?

In Acts 9 Saul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, and becomes Paul; in Acts 10 Peter is sent to a Gentile called Cornelius.

"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.   He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message" (Acts 10:34-44 NIV).

God does not show favoritism.

The Jewish apostles sometimes struggled with the idea of including the Gentiles in the church.

"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal 2:14, NIV).

The inclusion of Gentiles was done by a special revelation, after the formation of the church, after Jesus had sent the first apostles. What was the rationale behind the decision to include the Gentiles? The one concept that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, never ceased from declaring: Jesus had ended the enmity between Jews and Gentiles caused by the law and made the two one body through his death.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" (Eph 2:14-18, NIV).

  
If Gentiles were included in the priesthood because of the death of Jesus, and not because Jesus had sent them, why isn’t this true also of women?

A common misconception is that only the first twelve disciples were considered apostles. Barnabas, for example, wasn’t one of the Twelve Apostles, but he was nevertheless called an apostle.

“Although Barnabas was not among the original Twelve, he is traditionally thought to have been among the 72 commissioned by Jesus to preach; thus, he is given the honorary title of Apostle.”[ii]

  
All of the 72 sent by Jesus were Jewish, but were they all men?

“After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go” (Luke 10:1-2, NIV).

We know of one woman apostle who had “been in Christ” before Paul, which would place her before Acts 9 and 10, before the conversion of Paul and the inclusion of the Gentiles. Junia is mentioned together with Andronicus (Rom 13:7), wherefore they could have traveled together as apostles. Since women were apostles before the inclusion of Gentiles, why are women excluded from the priesthood if the priesthood was given to the apostles and those they appointed after them?

In addition, if Barnabas is recognized as an apostle by tradition, why do we not accept the apostleship of Junia by tradition?

“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφια) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!  But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”[iii]

And if those who were sent by Jesus were eligible for the priesthood, certainly the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene should be included in those sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel (John 4, 20:18).

At this point, Dominican Fr. Wojciech Giertych, the theologian of the papal household, claims we can’t know why chose only men as his apostles.

“According to Giertych, theologians cannot say why Jesus chose only men as his Apostles any more than they can explain the purposes of the incarnation or the Eucharist.” 

But then Giertych somewhat surprisingly states that only men are eligible for the priesthood because Jesus was a man.

"The son of God became flesh, but became flesh not as sexless humanity but as a male," [Fr. Wojciech] Giertych said; and since a priest is supposed to serve as an image of Christ, his maleness is essential to that role.”[iv]

Image of Christ.

Aren’t we all in Christ and reflect therefore the image of God, Christ being God?

“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:9-11, NIV).

After the “we cannot know” and the “Jesus was a man” arguments, we finally arrive to the core of the question:

“Men are more likely to think of God in terms of philosophical definitions and logical syllogisms, he said, a quality valuable for fulfilling a priest's duty to transmit church teaching.”

But should not women who think of God in terms of philosophical definitions be included in the priesthood? No, because male priests love the church in a “male way” and show concern "about structures, about the buildings of the church, about the roof of the church which is leaking, about the bishops' conference, about the concordat between the church and the state."”

In other words, we really don't want to know why God chose men for the priesthood, because there is no why.

In the end, Giertych, makes an astonishing comment:

 "The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power," he said. "What is most important is the encounter with the living God through faith and charity." "So women don't need the priesthood," he said, "because their mission is so beautiful in the church anyway."

That's nice.

Let’s take one more look at the arguments presented above. Men should be priests because Jesus chose men to be his apostles, because Jesus was a man, because men think philosophically, because men are concerned about buildings. But what about the Bible? Why does Giertych not take his own advice?

"In theology, we base ourselves not on human expectations, but we base ourselves on the revealed word of God," the theologian told Catholic News Service. "We are not free to invent the priesthood according to our own customs, according to our own expectations."

***

The Catholic website, Catholic.com finds the prohibition for women to become priests in the Bible.

 “While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy” (1 Cor. 14:34–38). [v]

But this begs the question, if men are eligible for the priesthood because Adam was created first, why were Gentile men excluded from the priesthood in the Mosaic Law, and why was Jesus a priest according to the order of Melchizedek?

All humans descend from Adam, in him we all die (1 Cor 15:22). How can the first man be the foundation of priesthood considering he is the beginning of humanity itself? All that is true of humans in general is found in Adam: he was created in the image of God, created to care for the earth and its inhabitants, created to be walk with God and to be with other humans. If we say the man’s prior creation is the foundation for the man’s authority, we are essentially saying that being an incomplete human is required for authority; the man was a lonely creature before the woman was created. Perhaps this explains why the Catholic Church insists on celibacy for priests.
 
But this begs the question: why did priests in the Old Testament marry if spiritual authority requires celibacy? And why did God choose first Melchizedek and Aaron to be his priests, if being a man is the only requirement for the priesthood? And why is there a long line of qualifications for priests in 1 Tim 3, if being a man is the most important qualification for the priesthood?

Because the Catholic Church relies on both the Bible and tradition, the same website cites various church fathers to support the idea that women should not be ordained. Most of the examples describe heretical women, but their examples do not prove that Catholic women espoused heresy, nor that the Catholic Church didn’t ordain women. The examples are equally troublesome. For example, when we look at the writings of Tertullian, we find him attempting remove women from the priesthood, for he talks about ordained women.

"How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact."[vi]

The original Latin text supports the above reading:

"Quanti (how many men) igitur (therefore) et quantae (how many women) in ecclesiasticis ordinibus (in ecclesiastical order) de (concerning) continentia (continence) censentur (judge/recommend), qui (who) deo (to God) nubere (married) maluerunt (prefer), qui (who) carnis (flesh) suae (theirs) honorem (honor) restituere (restore). (revive)."[vii]

The same is true of Chrysostom, who approved of Junia as an apostle. By the fourth century the leadership model of the Church had changed from the domestic overseer in the private home to the monarchial bishop who presided in God’s stead over a public assembly. The bishop was seated on a raised dais from which he governed the Church and it was from this seat that Chrysostom wanted to exclude women.

"In what sense then does he say, “I suffer not a woman to teach?”  He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, “How knowest thou, O woman, if thou shalt save thy husband?” Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but “she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?” How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him."[viii]

Chrysostom based his prohibition on Genesis 3:16 instead of Geneiss 2:

"If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been said to her before… The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male.”"[ix]

The reason for the prohibition seems to be the concept of honor. The priesthood is seen as honorable, and therefore bestowed only on those who are worthy of such an honor. Chrysostom wished to reserve the priesthood to men because he believed only Eve was guilty. Tertullian agreed with a perpetual punishment for women because of Eve’s sin.

"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,—the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination (conuersion), and he lords It over thee.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die."[x]

We no longer believe the woman is an inferior creature punished with subjection, nor do we believe Genesis 3:16 is a commandment from God.

Since the ancient exclusion of women from the priesthood was based on error and faulty theology, should the Catholic Church not move on and include women in the priesthood?

---

[i] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300417.htm

[ii] http://www.stbarnabasny.org/who-was-st-barnabas.html

[iii] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI

[iv] http://ncronline.org/news/theology/why-not-women-priests-papal-theologian-explains

[v] http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

[vi] On Exhortation to Chastity, XIII

[vii] http://www.tertullian.org/latin/de_exhortatione_castitatis.htm

[viii] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI.

[ix] Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX.  “The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex (infirmitas sexus and levitas animi) were the underlying principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the custody of males” (Pomeroy, 150).

[x] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Ch. I.