This is the final part in a series of articles about the role of sisters in the ecclesia. This section will continue to consider and respond to some common arguments against Biblical roles for men and women. The objections indicated below are not direct quotes from any particular sources; what I’ve done is paraphrase some of the opposition that I’ve read and heard about in the past.
Objection: The word “brethren” in 1 Cor 14 means “brothers and sisters”; therefore, verse 26, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation” tells us that both brothers and sisters were sharing doctrines, tongues, revelations, etc. at ecclesial meetings.
Response: In many places in the New Testament, the word “Brethren” can refer to both men and women; other times, it refers solely to men in the ecclesia, as in 1 Cor 7:29 and 9:5. Which is it in 1 Cor 14? The readers of this chapter are called “Brethren” or “you” by Paul, using second-person pronouns; however, the pronouns change to the third-person “they” in the section about women, verses 34 and 35. If the sisters were included in the term “Brethren”, why didn’t Paul write directly to them? If, on the other hand, Paul is primarily addressing men in the ecclesia throughout the chapter, the pronoun shift makes sense, as does the phrase “your women” in verse 34. The women are being written about, rather than addressed directly.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that sisters were indeed included in the word “Brethren” in 1 Cor 14. Their inclusion would parallel the case of a brother with the gift of tongues. In verse 28, the tongue speaker is told that if there is no interpreter present, he must “keep silence” in spite of his gift. The same goes for the prophets — if a revelation came to another, the first prophet would have to stop (verse 30). It may sound strange that God would give a prophet a prophecy that he was not free to deliver at that time, but according to this chapter it certainly happened! The same would hold true for women in the ecclesia, who learn in verses 34-35 that they are not supposed to speak in ecclesial meetings at all. Instead, like the male prophets who had to remain silent, sisters can “speak to [themselves], and to God”(verse 28).
Objection: Since the Greek words “aner” and “gyne” can be translated husband/ man or wife/woman depending on context, we can assume that when 1 Tim 2:11-12 talks about women being in “subjection”, it is referring to wives being subject to their husbands, and not about all women in the ecclesia being forbidden to teach all men.
Response: This objection claims that because the Greek words for “man” and “woman” can sometimes mean “husband” and “wife”, the verses about men and women in the ecclesia are actually referring to the relationship between married couples. However, it’s difficult to spin these verses like that, because the primary meanings of “aner” and “gyne” are a simple reference to being male or female. You can’t just assign an alternate meaning to a word that easily, especially since many unmarried men are referred to in the New Testament using the word “aner”, including both Elijah and Jesus.
How do we know, then, when these words should be translated as husband and wife? The context tells us! When Paul is talking about submission in marriage and family relationships, he makes that clear: for example, he references the husband and wife being “one flesh” in Eph 5:31, and speaks of husbands and wives alongside children and parents in Col 3:18-20. In contrast, the context of 1 Tim 2 shows that Paul is speaking about all men and women in the ecclesia, and not just husbands and wives. After all, husbands are not the only men who lift up their hands in prayer (1Tim 2:8), and wives are not the only women who dress modestly (1 Tim 2:9). The context denies that Paul is writing solely about married relationships in this chapter.
In case we were still uncertain, we have strong Biblical evidence that God’s hierarchy for men and women is applicable to the whole ecclesia. 1Cor 11:3 lays out this hierarchy by saying that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God”. Could he be speaking only of husbands being the head over their wives? No, he’s speaking about “every man” (verse 3), not just married ones; and the context says that “even so is the man also by the woman” (verse 12), which Young’s literal translation reads as “through the woman” and the NASB reads as “the man has his birth through the woman”. This is, of course, only true if we’re talking about mankind and womankind in general, since the wife does not give birth to her husband! Paul must be speaking of mankind and womankind, applying the hierarchy of men and women to the entire ecclesia.
Objection: The word “speak” in 1 Cor 14:34 is laleo, which means to babble; women are not being forbidden to speak, but to chatter idly.
Response: To learn what sort of speaking Paul means by using laleo, all we have to do is ask the context — and we have plenty of other uses of that word in the chapter surrounding verse 34! Paul uses laleo for “speak” throughout 1 Cor 14 for tongue-speaking and prophesying, saying things like “he that prophesieth speaketh [laleo]” (verse 3) and “he that speaketh [laleo] in an unknown tongue” (verse 4). He then finishes it up in verse 34 with “it is not permitted unto them to speak [laleo]”, referring to women in the meeting. The suggested, disparaging use of the word laleo does not occur at all in the New Testament.
Objection: It is so important to us as Christadelphians to preach, and in this day and age, when women and men are seen as absolute equals, holding women back in the ecclesia can be a hindrance to the Gospel.
Response: We all know the truth of Matt 7:13-14:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Even so, to see someone lose interest in the Truth, or fall away, because of one of our Christadelphian practices is always a source of grief. I have personally known unbaptized contacts, and baptized brothers and sisters, who left the ecclesia because of our belief that we should not marry outside of the Truth, fellowship with other Christian groups, serve in the military, and pay full-time ministers. People I know have rejected the Truth because we do not believe in universal salvation, or that children should give public prayers during memorial service, or that a Baptist should not join the ecclesia without first being re-baptized. Those who leave the faith have all sorts of reasons that have to do with some of our practices being unpalatable to them. However, the question weighing heavily on us should not be how we can make our beliefs more palatable, but how we can closer reflect the Truth. Then we need to learn how to teach the Truth more effectively, so that our hearers understand that our roles for men and women aren’t just our personal preferences, or a take-it-or-leave-it part of Christadelphian culture, but a product of the Bible itself. If we evaluated our teachings based upon which ones were most likely to increase the ecclesia, couldn’t it similarly be argued that abolishing gender distinctions in the ecclesia could result in a falling away? No matter what the world thinks, we must obey God. Paul’s closing thoughts in 1Cor 14:36-38 seem appropriate to this question:
“What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 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. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”
Objection: There are only two New Testament passages that seem to suggest that women should not teach or speak in ecclesial meetings, while there is the equivalent of a couple of chapters’ worth of examples suggesting that women did indeed speak and teach. Shouldn’t we listen to the side with the greatest evidence?
Exactly how many times does a commandment need to appear in the New Testament for it to be valid? A single occurrence of a truth doesn’t lessen its importance. If 1Tim 2 and 1Cor 14 were the only places where the role of women in the ecclesia was spelled out for us, we would still be required to obey them as “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). However, as we saw in the preceding articles, there is a wealth of Bible evidence that God intends different roles for male and female believers, and the Old and New Testaments are consistent on this subject. So where are the supposed “couple of chapters’ worth of examples” that would seem to contradict the clear meaning of Paul’s words about sisters? Here are some of the examples that have been said to “prove” that women and men should have no distinction in roles:
Priscilla: In Acts 18:24-26, there is little doubt that Apollos learned from Priscilla. Luke tells us that Apollos was already “mighty in the scriptures”, “instructed in the way of the Lord”, and “taught diligently the things of the Lord”; however, he had a gap in his knowledge regarding baptism. Both Aquila and his wife Priscilla “took him unto them” and explained this matter to him “more perfectly”. Priscilla did not act alone, and this was not a public act of teaching or leading the church. Nowhere does it say that Priscilla did most of the explaining. Some have suggested that because Priscilla’s name is sometimes listed first when the couple is mentioned, this means that she was the more talkative or active of the couple; however, this is speculation at best, since her name is listed first in only three of the six places where the couple is mentioned. Aquila is also named first in their encounter with Apollos, so this makes it difficult to assign a definite meaning to the order of their names. This example illustrates that there is nothing morally wrong about a man learning something from a woman, but it is not an example of a woman as a teacher and leader of the first century ecclesia.
Phoebe: In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is described as a “servant of the church which is at Cenchrea”. The Greek word for “servant” is diakonos, the same word used for “deacon” three times in Paul’s writing describing the ecclesial position of a deacon; the other 28 times this word is used in the New Testament, it is translated “servant” or “minister”. Clearly, both men and women may function as servants of the ecclesia! Even if Paul was referring to Phoebe as a “deacon”, there is nothing in the role of a deacon that implies eldership, leadership, or even teaching. This example doesn’t prove anything other than how vital the service of sisters is to the household of God.
Junias: Paul says in Rom 16:7 that Andronicus and Junias were “of note among the apostles”. Opinion is divided among Greek scholars as to whether “Junias” is a male or female name, but feminists have seized upon the possibility that Paul may be referring to a female apostle. However, it is not at all unmistakable that Junias was necessarily a woman; and even if so, Junias was not even necessarily an apostle! The Greek word for “among” is a preposition translated “by” 163 times in the New Testament and “among” 117 times; Paul may have been saying that Junias was of note by the apostles, not among them. Even if Junias was indeed a woman, this could simply mean that Andronicus was an apostle and Junias was his wife, as Paul says, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1Cor 9:5). This highly speculative example of a person who only might have been a woman and only might have been an apostle doesn’t do much to conclusively prove a feminist interpretation.
Jezebel: Surprisingly enough, Jezebel of Rev 2:20-23 is actually cited as New Testament proof that women were teachers in the first century ecclesia. Firstly, just because a person had the gift of prophecy does not automatically mean that person was a teacher. But more compellingly, Jezebel’s ecclesia is not a positive example of the way things should be done in the household of God, as they tolerated her promoting fornication! This example shows us nothing about the way Christ intended his body to operate.
Similarly, those who want to erase gender distinctions in the ecclesia often champion Miriam, Deborah and Huldah as examples of women who had leadership roles over men in the Old Testament. It is suggested that there is a great number of examples like this, but this is simply not true, as to list these three women is to nearly mention them all: just three, over the entire Old Testament period! Deborah spoke a personal prophecy to Barak encouraging him to lead, Huldah delivered God’s message for the king from her own home, and Miriam led the women in her prophetic song; these are not the clear, unmistakable portraits of female authority that the feminist viewpoint makes them out to be. As we saw above, the case for women as leaders and teachers over men in the New Testament is just as weak; a mere handful of examples outfitted with much speculation, amid an entire New Testament picture of men as the heads in their families and ecclesias. The evidence of role distinctions between men and women stands firm.
Objection: 1) 1 Tim 2:11-12 is addressing a Gnostic heresy which stated that women are superior to men. The verses do not really say that women should not teach or exercise authority over men, but that they should not teach false doctrine. 2) The statement about women being silent in 1 Cor 14:34-35 applies not to all women, but to women who are immature in the Truth; it’s addressing a specific group of disorderly women and telling them not speak if they’re going to disrupt ecclesial activity.
Response: There were undoubtedly particular issues of false doctrine and disorder that plagued the first century ecclesia at the time of Paul’s writing. However, Paul does not present his teaching about women’s roles as being conditional on the circumstances in which they were written. In fact, he does the opposite — when saying that women should not teach men in the ecclesia in 1 Tim 2:11-12, he links his teaching all the way back to Adam and Eve and the situation in the Garden of Eden. Lest we think that his words only applied because of the times he was writing in, he connects gender roles with creation and makes them binding on all mankind and womankind who would follow after Christ!
The clearest answer to the above objections is simply that this is not what the verses say. These Scriptures make clear, general statements about men and women in the ecclesia, with none of the qualifications that the objectors would like to see stated outright. Arguments against differing roles for men and women usually try to find alternate explanations to show that these verses somehow don’t mean what they say. Thus, the Word of God which simply says: “It is a shame for women to speak in the church”, becomes the words of man, saying: “It was a shame for a particular group of women who were new to the Truth and being rowdy during meeting; they have the right to speak and teach in the church, but not if they’re going to be loud and rude”. The Word of God, which simply says: “I suffer not a women to teach”, becomes: “I suffer not a few specific women to teach: those who preach the heresy of Gnosticism and woman’s supremacy over man. Women are free to teach, as long as they don’t teach false doctrine about those particular subjects.”
When God’s words have to be so supplemented with man’s words in order to be understood, it begs the question of whether we really trust the Bible. Are we allowing ourselves to take the clear teaching of the Bible at face value, or do our preconceived ideas and desires force us to find some other way to read these verses? It seems that because the plain meaning of these verses is not supportive of the world’s standard of gender equality, therefore they must mean something else. These objections also ignore the overarching theme of male teaching and leadership throughout the Bible, evidence so great that it cannot simply be explained away. We would be wise to question interpretations that do not allow us to take the practical examples, or the instructive teachings of Scripture at face value without adding our own interpretation.
Are we truly committed to following the example of the New Testament ecclesia? The answer will lie in whether we are willing to seek and follow what Scripture says about how we ought to conduct ourselves in the house of God.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One