This is Part 3 of a 4 part series about the role of Sisters in the ecclesia. This section will 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. Section 4 will continue with further responses to common objections.
Objection: “Isn’t this article itself hypocritical? You say that women may not teach men, yet a Brother might read this article and learn from it!”
Response: This objection is an example of a “straw man” fallacy — misrepresenting your opponent’s position so that you can better argue against it. Scripture does not teach that a woman may never inform a man of anything he doesn’t already know! Paul’s words in 1Tim 2 are referring to Sisters taking on the roles of teacher or leader over Brothers, and 1Cor 14 shows us that Paul particularly applies these commands in relation to out-loud speaking and teaching during a gathering “in the church”. Following God’s instructions through Paul as best we can, we can say that it would be wrong for me to be a speaker at an ecclesial gathering and teach a class to my Brothers on this subject. However, we saw in our previous studies that Paul is not saying that a man may never learn from a woman at all. Bible examples such as Priscilla helping Aquila explain a matter to Apollos, and Abigail counseling David not to avenge himself against Nabal, show that a woman may certainly teach a man in proper circumstances.
Objection: “Jewish society was oppressive toward women; Jesus rebelled against this by treating women as equals.”
Response: Jewish society at the time of Jesus, inasmuch as it was a sinful, human society, may well have been oppressive toward women. This shouldn’t be surprising to us. In the Law, God established differing roles for men and women, but He has never condoned oppression or cruelty. Jesus fulfilled the intention of the Law by treating women as God would want them to be treated, and Sisters today can be encouraged by the example of the women who listened and ministered to Jesus during his ministry. However, although Jesus enjoyed close relationships with the women who ministered to him, when it came time to choose a group of leaders and teachers, he chose twelve male disciples whom he sent out to teach and perform miracles. After Jesus’ death, the early ecclesia followed the standard Jesus set by appointing men as ecclesial leaders and chose a man, Matthias, to fill the vacancy left by Judas’ death. Although Jesus taught against the prevailing sinful attitudes of men, he continued God’s model of complimentary gender roles with different job descriptions for men and women among his followers. If we truly want to follow his example, we must ask ourselves if we are willing to do as he did.
Objection: “Both men and women preached publicly when they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.”
Response: This objection assumes that women were present in the group that spoke in tongues in Acts chapter 2; however, there isn’t any direct evidence in the chapter that women spoke at all. This is supposed by Peter’s reference to Joel chapter 2, which refers to daughters and handmaidens receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17-18); however, the Day of Pentecost was only a partial fulfillment of Joel 2: 29, in which God also states: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh”. All flesh did not receive the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2; instead, it was only the disciples who were gathered together who received the Spirit.
Even if this assumption is true and there were female disciples among those who witnessed to the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, this is not inconsistent with Sisters’ roles as taught in the rest of Scripture. We saw earlier in this article that the New Testament precedent for men taking on the speaking and leadership roles applies within the ecclesia. Examples such as Aquila and Priscilla preaching to Apollos together do not violate this precedent; Priscilla does not dominate in the record, and she clearly acted as Aquila’s fitting helper for preaching the gospel. It seems that those who only knew John’s baptism, such as Apollos, were re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 19:1-5), so Aquila and Pricilla can be thought of as working together with an unbaptized contact. The context of Paul’s words in 1Tim 2:12, “I suffer not a woman to teach”, is his statement in the next chapter that, “These things write I unto thee… that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God” (1Tim 3:14-15). There is no Biblical command against Sisters helping teach those outside the Truth, as would have been the case if female believers publicly demonstrated the ability to speak in tongues to the multitude in Jerusalem. However, those who point to Acts 2 as proof that women in the ecclesia have a right to teach in the exact same way as men, seem to ignore the latter part of the chapter: when it comes time for someone to take the lead and address the whole group, it is not a woman, but Peter, standing up with the eleven (Acts 2:14) who does this; and once those in the multitude are baptized, it is said that “they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine”, that is, the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:42). Acts chapter 2 reinforces, rather than contradicts, the Biblical model.
Objection: “In Acts 21, Philip’s daughters prophesied.”
Response: In the case of Philip’s daughters, we are only told the following: “We [Luke, Paul and his company] entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). The argument from a “women’s rights” perspective usually goes as follows:
- Phillip’s daughters prophesied.
- Therefore, they must have prophesied in the congregation of believers.
- Therefore, women are able to teach in the congregation of believers today.
If we understand Philip’s daughters in the context of the general New Testament teaching about the role of women, we can stop this speculative argument before it even reaches point 2. Paul writes in 1 Cor 14:34, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”. If the daughters of Philip were faithful to the Spirit-inspired teaching of Paul, they would have obeyed these words and not spoken or prophesied in the church. However, Paul also lays down a different set of guidelines for at home (1 Cor 14:35), in which a woman may freely speak and ask questions; if we know that Philip’s daughters prophesied, and that they were obedient to the teachings of Paul, we can reasonably conclude that they prophesied at home, where such activity was not at all improper. In fact, the verses describing Philip’s daughters support this conclusion by telling us that Paul and his company entered into the house of Phillip and abode with him; it makes sense that in this setting they observed the gift of prophecy in his four daughters.
Objection: “The Jerusalem Council established which elements of the Law were to be obeyed by the Gentile church; it did not establish that women need to be silent in obedience to the Law.”
Response: The answer to this objection is quite simple: the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) only dealt with those matters that were in dispute at the time. The interesting thing about this objection is that it admits that the Law did establish different roles for men and women. There are many principles and aspects of the Law that were carried forward into the lives of the New Testament ecclesia, but which are not mentioned in Acts 15. Marriage outside of the faith, for example, was clearly marked as sinful by the Law, but not mentioned whatsoever by the Jerusalem Council. Clearly, this does not mean that we are to then dismiss it as an aspect of the Law that was not carried over into our lives in Christ. The fact that marriage outside of the faith is commanded against elsewhere in the New Testament confirms this. When a commandment or principle found in the Law is repeated or reinforced in the New Testament, we generally consider it applicable to our lives today, and we saw earlier in this article that the Mosaic model of teaching and leadership for men is indeed reinforced in the New Testament.
Additionally, as is consistent with the examples throughout Acts, the Jerusalem Council was convened by Brothers (Acts 15:6), the speakers there were Brothers (Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James), and two men who were chief men among the brethren were chosen to travel delivering the Council’s decision to the churches (Acts 15:22). Although Sisters may have been present at some point during the Council (which one might guess from the words with the whole church used in verse 22), there is no indication that they exercised a speaking or leadership role in the proceedings. This story reinforces the New Testament model.
Objection: “Paul couldn’t have meant for his instructions to apply for all believers, since in 1 Corinthians 14 he says for women to ask their husbands at home — where does this leave unmarried women?”
Response: Paul may not have mentioned single women specifically in 1Cor 14:35, because his primary concern in is this chapter isn’t to thoroughly cover every conceivable family situation; rather, he is describing proper behavior in ecclesial meetings. His main point is to make a distinction between at home, where it is appropriate for a woman to speak, and in the church, where it is not. Married women could of course talk with their husbands at home, but single women aren’t necessarily left out of this verse. The word for “husbands” in this verse, aner, is translated “man” or “men” 156 times in the New Testament, and “husbands” only 50 times. Paul might very well be telling all women to ask their [men] at home, which would apply to wives, daughters, and single women all talking with their male family members. The important point here is that Paul is highlighting the environment in which the speaking is taking place: in the church is not the time for a woman to speak, but any woman, married or single, may freely discuss and ask questions about the Scriptures in a home environment.
Objection: “God wants us to use our gifts; why should educated women with a gift for speaking and leading be kept away from the podium on Sunday morning?”
Response: Does the Bible tell us that education, professional credentials, and natural skills are the prerequisites for teaching and leading the ecclesia? It’s the world that chooses leaders and teachers based on earthly qualities. God doesn’t think this way: “man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” (1Sam 16:7). Moses, for instance, asked God to send someone else as he was slow of speech, but God said, “I will be with thy mouth” (Exod 4:12). However, this being said, what would God want women to do with the gifts and talents that He gave them in the first place? Who is in charge of how those gifts should be used? Consider Paul’s instructions to the first century ecclesia: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1Cor 14:29-32).
The prophets were expected to exercise self-control in the use of their gifts. For example, a person who was given a prophecy and stood to speak it, was required to stop if another prophecy came to someone else. This means that God could give someone a prophecy that was not meant to be spoken in that setting. 1Cor 14:27 shows us that the same was true for those with the gift of tongues; the fourth person with a tongue was not permitted to speak it, even though their gift was also from God! Furthermore, if no interpreter was present, no one was permitted to use the gift of tongues at all! This principle of the gifts being subject to the prophets would also apply to gifted women, who were instructed to be silent in the ecclesia. Women would be able to control their gift and remain silent in this particular setting, while exercising their gift more freely in other venues.
The Bible also shows that possession of the Holy Spirit doesn’t allow an individual to override God’s hierarchy. Num 27:18-21, for example, shows that even though Joshua was a man in whom is the spirit, he was still subject to Eleazar, God’s appointed priest. Similarly, Aaron and Miriam contested Moses’ appointment to headship over the congregation by pointing out that they, too, were vessels for God’s words: “Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us” (Num 12:2)? In response to this, God struck Miriam with leprosy, only to heal her in response to the prayers of Moses; God thus affirmed that His established hierarchy was to be followed regardless of the possession of the Spirit. If this was so with the Holy Spirit gifts, it is surely true today when we consider our own natural talents and gifts. Just because a particular Brother has a gift for leadership doesn’t mean that he is supposed to be the one in charge of the ecclesia. In fact, the New Testament states very clearly that there are qualifications to be followed for ecclesial leadership, such as ruling your household well and not being a novice in the faith (1 Tim 3:4-6). Similarly, just because a woman has a gift for teaching, it does not follow that she can exercise it independently of the Bible’s limits on where and when it is appropriate for a woman to teach. We must all limit ourselves, our talents and our desires, to bring them into obedience to God’s word; ecclesial roles are just one small part of that.
I also believe that a Sister who makes this objection is sadly limiting her definition of teaching and leadership. There are many ways in which a Sister can exercise a natural talent for teaching and shepherding, and a truly creative and enthusiastic Sister can find countless avenues to serve God with her skills while staying within His limits. To single out the podium as the one place where she wants to serve is showing a bias; somehow, she must think that the podium is the most important place in the ecclesia, and has decided she must have the one role denied to her by Scripture. I see this as an unfortunate loss of her talents and energy in other areas, and I would encourage my Sisters who find themselves in this position to really search their hearts and motivations for serving God.
Objection: The word “Brethren” in 1Cor 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 1Cor 7:29 and 9:5. Which is it in 1Cor 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 context indicates that women are being written about, rather than addressed directly.
However, let’s suppose that Sisters were indeed included in the word Brethren in 1Cor 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 (vs 30). It may sound strange that God would give a prophet a prophecy that he was not free to deliver, 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 take a speaking position in ecclesial meetings. Instead, like the male prophets who had to remain silent, Sisters can “speak to [themselves], and to God (verse 28).”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One