This is the second in a four-part series; Part 1 was about understanding Biblical oneness and presented God’s gender roles from creation, and Parts 3 and 4 will consider some of the most common objections to gender roles as taught in the Bible.
Male headship in the Old Testament
We’ve already seen (in last month’s article) how the Law of Moses taught that men and women were equally responsible for sin and equally able to attain salvation. However, this shared responsibility between men and women was operated under the overarching spiritual leadership of men in a system designed by God. The following are just a few examples to show that God consistently placed men in positions of leadership and teaching under the Law:
- Before Israel was a nation, the blessing from God and the promises were passed down through the males in the family, usually the firstborn males. In the nation of Israel, the inheritance was passed down through sons (in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad who had no brothers, Moses told the daughters according to the word of the LORD that in order to receive their father’s inheritance, they must marry men from their own tribe (Numb 36).
- The heads of each family in each tribe were always male (Numb 1:16). The princes over each tribe were always male. Wise men were chosen in the wilderness to judge among the people (Deut 1:13-15).
- Aaron and his sons were the priests of the congregation. This was a matter of lineage, and not a matter of who had the most priestly skill or merit. Note that this limited not only women in the congregation, it also limited anyone outside of Aaron’s family; a man from Judah or Dan could become a judge, a prophet or a hero of the people, but he could not be a priest, not without disrupting God’s order.
- The priests’ role primarily involved overseeing religious service and teaching the congregation (Deut 20:2-3; 24:8; 2 Kgs 17:27; 2 Chron 15:3; Neh 8:8-9; Mic 3:11; Mal 2:7). There could never be a female priest without disobeying God’s design.
- Although there were some female prophets and one female judge, all of the known authors of the Old Testament were men. As far as we can tell, God consistently chose to preserve His message to believers through men.
- Finally, God promised to bring redemption through a male child, God’s only-begotten Son, who would follow the lineage of the male kings of Judah and sit on David’s throne. This process required a faithful virgin, of course; but the King himself would be male.
Remember my disclaimer in “Part 1” of this article? I’m not seeking to show all of the ways women served God in the Old Testament — to do so would take an entire book. The list above does not exclude faithful women from having an important place in God’s plan, but it does show that the job of leadership – especially in teaching – was carved out specifically for men. This isn’t because men are said to be better suited for this job, but to draw believers’ minds back to Adam and forward to Christ. Taking the total message of the Old Testament guidelines for religious service, it seems that the Hebrews were meant to see the roles given to Adam and Eve at creation as extending over the whole congregation and applying to all men and women.
Male headship in the New Testament
Wait a minute, you might be thinking … the priestly system of the Law doesn’t apply to believers in Christ! The specific roles of the Aaronic and Levitical priest-hoods may have ceased, but the examples of male leadership in God’s design do not stop with the book of Malachi. If they did – if this precedent was only visible in the Old Testament – we might have greater reason to question whether God still desires a difference in Brothers’ and Sisters’ roles today. However, this isn’t the case. The overarching theme of male headship in the Old Testament continues in the examples and instructions given to the ecclesia of Christ.
Just like in the law, ecclesial hierarchy in the New Testament doesn’t take away from the spiritual responsibility or salvation of Sisters – instead, it outlines a functional relationship that is meant to teach a spiritual lesson. Paul explains this hierarchy in 1Cor 11:3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This verse outlines three separate relationships:
- God is the head of Christ.
- Christ is the head of “every man” (Christ’s body; the saints).
- Man is the head of the woman.
In this verse, we see that men and women are both under the headship of Christ, with all of us being a part of his body. However, there is also a way in which women in the ecclesia are under the headship of men. The word for head (Strong’s #2776) can mean the literal head of a body, or can be metaphorical for anything supreme, chief, or prominent. It’s easy to see how a physical head can represent leadership or prominence; the human head directs the body, and the body gives the head the ability to accomplish its purposes. The body would not be able to accomplish anything without the head, neither the head without the body — a point which Paul makes in 1Cor 11:11 by saying “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”. The physical head must care for the body by protecting its health and well-being, and must listen to the body in order to benefit from its help and to discern its needs. Finally, the head is the only part of the body that has a mouth; therefore, the head communicates for the body. This mini-parable alone isn’t sufficient to describe the New Testament’s teaching on this subject, but using Paul’s imagery gives us insight into the mind of God, and how He sees the ecclesia. How does this work out practically? One way is that Brothers are specifically given the jobs of teaching and leadership over the ecclesia. We learn this from the New Testament’s explicit instruction, and from the examples we have of the way the first century ecclesia operated.
1 Tim 2:11-12 is one of the specific instructions on this subject: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” To understand this passage, first we have to understand what is meant by women learning “in silence”. The word for “silence” (Strong’s #2271) doesn’t mean absolute silence, as when a person is muzzled or dumb — rather, it means quietness. To get a clearer picture of what kind of quietness is meant, we can look at another passage where the same word is used:
“For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread” (27 hess 3:11-12).
It doesn’t say that these busybodies are never to utter a single word — instead, they are to hold their tongues and keep their peace. This is not the same as being muzzled from speaking, but rather, making a conscious choice not to speak. In contrast, when you’re a teacher, your role is clearly to speak out, be heard, challenge, educate, and exhort an audience.
How should this quietness be exercised? The next verse tells us: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1Tim 2:12). The way a Sister in Christ chooses quietness is by abstaining from both teaching and usurping authority. But is this saying that a woman may give no instruction at all, to anyone? The first two ideas in this phrase are parallel, meaning that the terms “to teach” and “to usurp authority over” both relate to the following phrase “the man”. Sisters are simply instructed not to teach or have authority over men in the ecclesia, but rather, to learn in quiet peace. In contrast, men in the New Testament ecclesias are never commanded not to teach women or their fellow men, but women in this verse are specifically asked to refrain from teaching men.
The word for “teach” here is didasko (Strong’s #1321), meaning “to give instruction.” There is nothing in the word “teach” that means anything other than “teach” — it is the common New Testament word for instruction. The word for “usurp authority”, authenteo, is said by Vine’s Expository Dictionary to mean “to exercise authority on one’s own account, to domineer over…to usurp authority…to have dominion”. This verb is translated “to have authority” in the NIV, and “to exercise authority” in the ESV. It is clear that teaching and leadership are being addressed, and all we have to do is look at the next time chapter to see what kind of authority Paul is referring to – 1 Timothy 3 contains instructions for ecclesial leaders, and specifies that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. This language tells us that positions of ecclesial authority were supposed to be held by men.
If we’re wondering how these instructions from Paul work out practically, the tense of the verb in these verses can give us some insight. Rather than using the Greek aorist tense, which means a simple event or happening, he used the present tense, meaning a condition or process. This sounds more complicated than it really is: for example, the Greek word “to serve” in the aorist tense means to serve on one particular occasion, whereas in the present tense it means “to be a servant”. Here’s an example of a passage where the distinction between the aorist and the present tense is important: 1John 3:9, which says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin”. If read in the aorist tense, it would seem to mean that if you commit a single act of sin, you are not born of God. However, John used the present tense in this verse, which takes on the meaning of being a continual sinner. The New American Standard Version translates this verse with more attention to the verb tense: “No one who is born of God practices sin”. In 1Tim 2, Paul used the Greek present tense when he said “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority”. He was therefore not talking about incidental teaching, where a Sister might, in answering a question for example, convey a truth to a Brother. Sisters shouldn’t worry about disobeying Paul by accidentally teaching something: it’s just saying that the role or position of a teacher or leader in the ecclesia is not for Sisters.
1 Cor 14:34-35 sheds further light on these instructions: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
The word used for “speak” (Strong’s #2980) means the literal act of uttering words, and it is also the New Testament word used for “preaching”. These verses rule out taking on a teaching role in the ecclesia. So we don’t make the mistake of thinking that these verses are directed at just one group of disorderly women in Corinth, we can see the two uses of the phrase “in the churches” in verses 33 and 34, showing that Paul meant his instructions to be applied throughout all the ecclesias of Christ. If we’re wondering whether these are merely guidelines that we can pick and choose whether to follow, verse 37 makes it plain: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”.
We base our Christadelphian practices on these “commandments of the Lord”, but we also see these principles reinforced by the way the first century ecclesia conducted itself. The following are just a few of many examples:
- Jesus had women ministering to him (Mark 15:41), but he designated 12 men as apostles and sent them out to preach (Luke 9:1-2).
- Jesus told his 12 disciples that they would sit on 12 thrones in His kingdom (Matt 19:27-28), continuing the leadership position they would take after his death. After the death of Judas, the twelfth apostle was also a man chosen by divine lot (Acts 1:24-26).
- When it came time to appoint an apostle to the Gentiles, Jesus appointed a man, Paul.
- Although women were undoubtedly involved in the workings of the ecclesias, and sometimes received mentions from Paul, his descriptions of bishops (or “overseers”) and elders showed that these roles were meant for men; they use male pronouns throughout and refer to the qualified men as husbands (1Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). We do not read of Sisters taking these roles.
- We consistently read in the book of Acts of men leading the Jerusalem Council, men standing up to speak and preach, men leading the committee for the widows’ ministration, men collecting and conveying the Jerusalem fund – the overwhelming evidence of Acts consistently places men in speaking and leadership roles (Acts 2:14-16; 4:34-37; 6:1-6; 11:30; and 13:1 to name a few).
- And finally, no New Testament book was penned by a Sister — God chose to leave His instructions on record for the future ecclesia through Brothers.
I’ll re-state my disclaimer again: my purpose in this article is not to detail all of the ways in which a woman can serve the Body of Christ, except to say that apart from the roles involving teaching and leadership of men, the whole spectrum of service is open to her. For a Sister who wants to be involved in teaching of some sort, there are a myriad of options available, but one in particular stood out to me in my reading: women are specifically called to teach other women.
“The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as become holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:3-5).
Older women are given a special vocation to teach younger women about self-control, purity, and what it means to be a Godly wife and mother. How many of us who are enthusiastic about speaking and teaching have pursued this particular Biblical calling to the very best of our abilities?
More than just a symbol
At the beginning of this article, I asked whether you know how to answer the question: “Why do we do it that way?” When researching this subject, I expected to find one or two New Testament passages that explain the Biblical, complementary roles of Brothers and Sisters, and I thought that this would be enough to summarize the Bible’s position. Instead, what I found was a wealth of evidence in both the Old and New Testaments supporting God’s design for male teaching and leadership, complemented by female help, submission and support. I learned why these roles are sometimes very difficult for us to perform; after all, our predecessors, Adam and Eve, failed to live up to them from the beginning of creation, and we share their nature. I learned that Biblical roles are a teaching device, and that we should be able to look at our ecclesias and see Christ and his Body in our Brothers and Sisters. By understanding and living our roles, we can learn what it would have been like in the Garden of Eden if Adam and Eve had worked together from the beginning.
Some of us may find that Biblical gender roles seem meaningless to us; after all, if men are no more spiritual, talented or intelligent than women, why would God want us to behave differently? Does He want us to have different roles just for the sake of ritual role-playing? When we make this complaint, we’re forgetting a characteristic of our God: He loves symbolism. He uses symbols throughout the Bible to teach His children, and He doesn’t want us to just observe them academically, from the sidelines: He asks us to jump in, to experience and engage in them personally. Think of all of the sacrifices, feasts and priestly responsibilities contained in the Law, the powerful metaphor of baptism, and how every week, we take the bread and wine in symbolic remembrance of Christ’s body and blood. The repetitive ritual of the breaking of bread isn’t just empty role-playing for us — it’s representation! God chose for us to be saved by the representative sacrifice of Christ, and representation and symbolism are an inescapable part of our lives as believers. In the same way, the symbols of head and body in the ecclesia are meant to draw our minds to Christ and teach us to obey him even when it is difficult. There is power in training ourselves to think like God, to truly love these symbols and to spend our lives participating in them.
It’s never easy to go against the grain of our culture, or our nature. But that’s exactly the kind of courage we need to cultivate. The world changes, but God’s principles remain the same, which is why true believers all over the world and throughout time – from the 1st century ecclesia to the 21st century ecclesia — can meet together in fellowship. We believe in a God whose ways are higher than our ways, whose teachings transcend cultural barriers and withstand the test of time.
If it hasn’t happened already, it probably will — someone will ask you, “Why do we do it that way?” Will you know how to answer?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One