What is the Source of The Assertion That Only Men Can Be Ordained?

One of the big questions among Christians today is: Who should be allowed to be ordained to be deacons, priests, and bishops; men, women, married, or unmarried? Varying beliefs on this topic are a source of division in Christendom today. This article explores the source of the assertion that only men should be ordained.

The Catholic Church, which represents around half of the world’s Christians, is firm in its stance that only men can receive holy orders, which includes the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops. The issue has been revisited many times. However, in 1994, John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter called Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; here are a couple of excerpts:

Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

This letter also clarifies that the church believes Jesus chose only men to be his Apostles purposefully and the Apostles did the same for their successors and that practice has continued to this day. They believe this is Jesus’ plan for the priesthood and that the church has no authority to change that. Furthermore, the Catholic Church asserts that priests represent Christ on earth (in persona Christi). They say that the priest should bear a natural resemblance to Jesus in gender and that Jesus’ maleness was an important part of who he was in human form. Therefore, since Jesus was male, and priests represent Jesus, priests must be male as well.

John Paul II required that all faithful Catholics hold this belief, meaning that it is a mortal sin to believe otherwise. However, some Catholics still ask, does priestly ordination include deacons? Did the succession from Jesus to the Apostles, to their successors include priests, or is it just the succession of bishops?

There are many who challenge the assertion that “from the beginning [Priestly ordination has] always been reserved to men alone.” There is significant historical evidence that women were deacons, ministers, or priests in some early Christian churches. One such example comes from the Bible itself in the writings of Paul to the Romans.

Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church at Cenchrea. Welcome her in the Lord as is appropriate for saints, and provide her with anything she may need from you, for she has ministered to many people, including me. Romans 16:1-2 (ISV)

Some translations use the word servant instead of deacon and others use minister. The original Greek word was diákonos which translates literally to deacon. That same word appears in the New Testament 31 times. Strong’s Lexicon says that it is translated as deacon three times, as minister twenty times and as servant eight times in the King James Version.

The Catholic Church specifically denies that Phobe was a deacon in the sense of receiving holy orders. They say that female deaconesses were part of a minor order not ordained. Paul’s statement “for she has ministered to many people, including me” certainly implies that Phobe was an ordained deacon and that Paul did not have a problem with being ministered to by a woman. There is plenty of room for good faithful people to disagree with the Catholic Church’s view on this topic as it relates to deacons.

There were also women viewed as Apostles in the first century. For example, also in Paul’s writings:

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7 (ESV)

Junia, who Paul implies is an Apostle, is thought by most scholars to be a woman. Some scholars use this passage as proof positive that there were female Apostles. Others, including the Catholic Church, assert that while Junia may be a woman, being of note among the Apostles does not mean she was one. It could simply mean that the Apostles knew her. Again, there is plenty of room for good faithful people to disagree with the Catholic Church on this topic.

The Orthodox churches, other Eastern Churches, and some Protestant denominations today take a similar stance as the Catholic Church on ordination of women. Until the late 19th century, all Protestant denominations reserved ordination for men.

So, is this stance simply due to 1,900 years of tradition, patriarchal attitudes, or is it rooted in the scriptures? I researched the teachings of Jesus recounted in the four Gospels. I could find no teachings of Jesus about whether or not women could become his apostles and spread his teachings. There are also no teachings of Jesus about who could be clergy in His church. The Jewish culture that Jesus lived in was patriarchal. Men generally did not speak to women in public, and women did not hold leadership roles in the church. The Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, and Priests were all men. Women also did not hold positions in the Sanhedrin, the local governmental body for religious, civil, and criminal affairs.

Jesus was different from men of his time; He had women disciples, some of whom supported Him financially (Luke 8:1–3.) In the Gospels, we see Jesus speaking to women in public and performing healing miracles for women just like men. The first person to whom Jesus reveals that He is the Messiah is the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well near Sychar (John 4:7-26.) She then goes into the town to proclaim that a man who may be the Christ is near, and many from the town go to see Jesus. Many people propose that the Samaritan woman became an Apostle, chosen by Jesus to spread the word to the people in her town. Jesus defended a woman caught in adultery and told the people that he who is without sin should cast the first stone (John 8:1–11.) Jesus also taught crowds of people, including both men and women. By Jesus’ actions and teachings there is not even a hint about who could be clergy in his church.

It is true that Jesus selected twelve men to be his inner circle. He granted them the ability to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons, and sent them out to spread his teachings. Based on that example, some churches assert that the modern-day successors to the Apostles, called Bishops, must be men. Jesus later selected seventy-two of his disciples to proceed him, also granting them the ability to heal, etc., in his name (Luke 10:1-12.) The Gospels do not tell us who these seventy-two Apostles are and if they were only male.

After the resurrection, in the Great Commission, Jesus imbued the remaining original eleven Apostles with the Holy Spirit and directed them to go forth and spread his teachings (Matt 28:16–20.) He also appeared to 500 of his disciples, presumably both men and women, but we do not know what Jesus said to them (1 Cor 15:6.) It seems likely that having seen the living resurrected Christ, both men and women would have spread his teachings.

Based on the teachings of Jesus, it is difficult to conclude what Jesus thought about women in clergy roles. Reading the various stories in the Gospels, one might conclude that Jesus did not take a stand on that. Other than pointing out that Jesus selected men as the original twelve disciples/apostles, it is not from the Gospels or any teaching of Jesus that the assertion that clergy must be men comes. The fact that Jesus did not teach about this topic gives many people significant reason to doubt that Jesus intended to exclude women from the clergy.

If not from the teachings of Jesus, where does this idea come? It comes from the letters to various churches and people attributed to Paul that are included in the Bible. The following passage is often quoted to support male-only clergy:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Cor 14:32-37 (ESV)

However, this passage does not address the clergy in the church; it appears to be talking about the lay people there to hear the word and learn. Furthermore, the Greek word γυνή translated as “women” can also be translated as “wife.” (see Strong's G1135) That makes more sense given the “let them ask their husbands at home” part of the passage. So perhaps Paul is talking about the dynamics between a husband and wife and this passage has no relation to female clergy or even women in general.

Some people assert that 1 Corinthians 11:5 contradicts 14:32-37. It discusses women praying and prophesying, presumably in church, and that they should do so with their heads covered. Some suggest that in 1 Corinthians 14:32-37, Paul was talking about lay women talking and questioning openly in church and not all speech like praying and prophesying. In my opinion, this passage does not explicitly address the question of female clergy.

I have been to several denominations’ churches. In all of them, women speak, do readings, perform prayers, lead songs, make announcements, and generally speak in various ways, including in Catholic churches. Women remaining quiet may have been the tradition in Paul’s time, but apparently, churches today do not believe it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. I tried to look back at historical writings about the early church on this topic, and it appears that women were discouraged from speaking in some places. In others, they were in various leadership roles similar to deacons.

Another often-quoted passage to support male-only clergy is:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 1 Tim 2:8-12 (ESV)

This passage does seem to make it clear that women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men in church. That does seem to preclude women from being priests or bishops over a church. However, again, the Greek word γυνή translated as “woman” can also be translated as “wife” (Strong's G1135) and the Greek word ἀνήρ translated as “man” (Strong's G435) can also be translated as “husband.” So, this is a possible translation:

Let a wife learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband; rather, she is to remain quiet.

If this is the correct translation, it significantly changes the meaning of the passage. I do not know which translation more correctly expresses the intent of the author. I can see why good and faithful people can come to different conclusions as to the applicability of this passage to the question about female clergy.

Another point to consider is that the parts of this passage, “I desire…” and “I do not permit…” could indicate that this is the author’s opinion, based on the prevailing culture or early church tradition, and not a directive from God or Jesus. There is certainly nothing in Jesus’ teachings to support this. To complicate the analysis further, most scholars believe that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. They cite stylistic and word use differences between it and the unquestioned epistles of Paul. Some scholars think it was written by Polycarp in the mid-second century, who was Bishop in Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John.

Another section in 1 Timothy 3 discusses the qualifications for clergy:

Qualifications for Overseers

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Qualifications for Deacons

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 3:1-13 (ESV)

These passages seem to make it clear that clergy should be married men with all the attributes mentioned. These are the most direct passages in the Bible that speak to the requirements for clergy. There are similar, but less detailed, passages in Titus 1 as well.

There is much discussion among biblical scholars about the translation of these passages. Apparently, the phrase “husband of one wife” is only one of several possible translations of the original Greek. I consulted a word-by-word translation of these passages. The literal translation is “one-woman man”. If that is true, then the emphasis is on the person not being a polygamist, an adulterer, or divorced and remarried. However, the author did clearly use the term man, and the word “he” or “his” in multiple places. There are many opinions doubting that the author intended to say the person must be married or to exclude women from the role.

After reading the word-for-word translation of the original Greek. It is clear that the author did use male pronouns throughout these passages. However, that still does not tell us the author’s intent. Were the male pronouns used to establish that the positions must be held by men? Or were they used because the author did not want to say, “he or she,” “him or her”, “one-woman man or one-man woman” throughout. Even in modern day it is only recently that authors use the grammatically incorrect word “they” to replace “he” when they intend to be gender inclusive.

Does anyone think that in the statement from the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” that the word “men” does not mean “men and women” or “people”? Or that in the statement “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” that Neal Armstrong meant men and not all of humanity? The very definition of the word man in the various dictionaries indicates that the word “man” can mean male or can refer to all people, male and female. Unfortunately, the common use of male pronouns both when authors mean male and when authors mean all people, creates plenty of uncertainty. It is impossible for translators to know which is the case unless the author indicates which they mean in some way.

As far as I can determine, the church has held the view that the ordination of priests and bishops (overseers) has been reserved for men since the early days. This continued in almost all Christian churches, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, until the late 19th century, when some Protestant churches started ordaining women. There is evidence that the ordination of women as deacons and similar roles did occur in the early church.

Many protestant denominations only allow male clergy today, and they generally quote the same passages from the Bible as Catholics to justify that stance. However, some other Protestant denominations have decided to allow women to be deacons; some allow them to be deacons and ministers, but not the lead pastor in charge of the church or parish. Others allow women deacons, ministers, and lead pastors, but not bishops. A few denominations allow women in all clergy roles, including the bishop.

I researched the reasoning that some churches use to allow women to be clergy, given the 1900 years of tradition and the Bible passages quoted above. For deacons, some say that in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Qualifications for Deacons, the phrase “Their wives likewise must be dignified…” is a mistranslation of “The women likewise must be dignified…” I used Biblegateway.com to read 1 Tim 3:11 across many translations, and I found that some of them do translate it to say women, not wives. The word for word translation from Greek uses the same word, γυνή, mentioned above that can be translated as woman or wives. They also point out that the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 does not include a statement about their wives. Why would deacons’ wives be mentioned and not overseers wives? This gives credence to the correct translation being “The women likewise must be dignified…” implying that women can be deacons.

Many people also point out that deacons do not have the authority of pastors and bishops, so having female deacons does not run afoul of 1 Tim 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man…” Some churches site the historical evidence that in the early church, there were female deacons. Given these reasons, I can see why some churches have decided that the Bible does not prohibit female deacons. I recently read an article that even some Orthodox churches now allow women to be deacons. This continues to be a question in the Catholic Church. In October 2023, Pope Francis re-confirmed that women cannot receive holy orders, including as deacons. Nevertheless, many Catholics are still pushing for female deacons to be allowed.

When it comes to assisting priests or ministers who are not the lead pastor of the church, the argument is that Overseers are bishops and lead pastors and that the qualifications for priests or ministers who are not the lead pastor are governed by the Qualifications for Deacons, and therefore, they could be women. Based on that, some modern-day churches have decided to allow women to be deacons and ministers, just not lead pastors.

One issue is that today, we have deacons, various types of ministers or priests, pastors, sr. pastors, bishops, archbishops, and above. There are differing views on how to correctly map these positions to the two roles of Overseer and Deacon mentioned in the Bible. Current-day deacons clearly fit in the deacon category, and current-day bishops and above clearly fit in the Overseer category. That leaves some ambiguity about which requirements apply to ministers, priests, and pastors.

When it comes to allowing women to be lead pastors or bishops (overseers), fewer denominations have made that change. The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) allows each bishop to decide to ordain women as deacons, ministers, or pastors but reserves the office of bishop to men. Many Pentecostal churches allow women to be ministers and pastors, but not bishops. Some churches like Baptists, Presbyterians, and non-denominational churches do not have Bishops, so the Overseers are clearly the lead pastors. Some allow women to be lead pastors, and some do not. The Episcopal Church and many other Anglican Communion churches now allow women bishops, as does the United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. That decision has become a source of division in those churches.

I looked into how churches that allow women to be lead pastors and bishops address the biblical statements that seem to reserve those positions for men; they fell into a couple of categories. Some churches assert that the gendered language in those teachings simply reflects the cultural norms at the time they were written and that they do not reflect any teachings of Jesus or God. So effectively, it was a tradition of the early church, not the will of God, and since cultural norms have changed, we do not need to maintain that tradition. The lack of any direct teachings by Jesus about this topic does give credence to this line of reasoning. Others simply ignore the passages mentioned above and have decided to ordain women in response to social pressures.

Summary

There are no direct teachings of Jesus about the ordination of women, and the original Apostles are silent on the matter as well. Jesus himself did not bow to the culture at the time, and he treated women as equals. However, he did choose only men to be his twelve apostles.

The biblical teachings generally quoted to support restricting ordination to men come from Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians and even stronger statements in 1 Timothy and similar passages in Titus. However, there are multiple possible translations of these passages which can significantly impact our understanding of them.

It is unclear if these teachings are simply a reflection of Paul’s, or the author’s, own views, if they reflect the patriarchal culture at the time, if they are mistranslations, or if they are inspired and reflect the will of God as written, including the gendered language.

I do not have the answer, but I hope I have answered the question about where the beliefs related to the ordination of men and women come from. They come from Jesus’ example in choosing men to be his Apostles, the writings attributed to Paul, and centuries of church tradition. You can choose to trust your church in this matter, study the scriptures yourself for the answer, and perhaps, in either case, pray for guidance.

My Opinion

I have been encouraged by some of my reviewers to include my own opinion on the ordination of women. For what it is worth, I personally believe that the limits on the ordination of women as deacons are at best weakly supported in scriptures and those limits are in large part church tradition and the product of a historically patriarchal culture. Given that, I think that disallowing women to be deacons is misguided. I think disallowing women to be assisting priests or ministers is possibly not the intent of the scriptures. I think those roles fall in the Deacon category and not the Overseer category and that 1 Timothy 3, as translated by some scholars, allows women in Deacon roles.

It is not clear to me if the intent of Paul and whoever wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, was to reserve the role of overseer to men, but it does appear that way. I can see why the church concluded that 1 Timothy 3 along with Jesus’ example of choosing men to be his Apostles does reserve the role of overseer to men. I am also not sure if those authors were asserting that God wants it that way or if that was their own opinion. I cannot claim to know the mind of God, or the intent of the scripture authors.

I accept the will of God on this and all matters, if I can determine what that is. In this case I am unsure. It is difficult to just ignore over 1,900 years of tradition and the conclusions of all the great thinkers through the ages. However, I admit that being a product of the current age, reserving any role solely to men or women, without good reason, makes me uncomfortable.

Douglas A. Leas, January 2025

Acknowledgments: Thank you to Sr. Pastor David Ball, Hannah MacDonald, Bishop Neil Lebhar, and Corrine Leas for their input on this article. Note - This does not mean they endorse my conclusions.

Sources:

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

John Paul II, 1994, Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

Orthodox Church in America, nd, Ordination of Women Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

Orthodox Christian Theology, 2019, A Definitive Response to the “Female Priests” Issue Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

Anglican Church of North America, 2017, College of Bishops Statement on the Ordination of Women Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

Anglican Communion, 1978, Resolution 21 - Women in the Priesthood Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

United Methodist Church, 2022, Timeline of Women in Methodism Retrieved Nov. 11, 2024.

Abarim Publications' free online interlinear (Greek/English) New Testament

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV) Blue Letter Bible. Retrieved 8 Dec 2024.

Bible Gateway for comparing translations.

I also consulted the websites of various denominations to determine their current stance on female ordination as of Nov. 11, 2024.