THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH?
The WAY magazine (January-February-March edition, 1998)
INTRODUCTION by Keith Hunt:
Among the Sabbath/Festival of God observing Churches,
there has been THREE large important doctrinal debates in
the last 30 years. Two have been over "church government"
and "the calendar." The third debate is over the role of
women in the church. I have written in the past quite
extensively on this topic, yet it is needful for me to comment
on the following points and arguments of the article below
that appeared in The Way publication. This will be a long
study, but a necessary one as we search the Scriptures for the
truth of the matter. I will comment and expound where I feel it
is needed as we slowly proceed through the following article.
Should A Woman Be
Allowed to
Speak in Services?
by
Dale D. Carmean and Jack M. Lane
The controversy continues about this subject. On the one
hand, there are those who say a woman's place is to keep silent
in the church, and be under subjection, pointing to a number of
scriptures which seem to say so. On the other hand, there are
many people who don't see any problem with allowing women to
fully participate in services, even teaching! Is it true that the
Greek Scriptures say something substantially different than what
the English translations say? Who is right? Can we know?
Part One:
Introduction
Of the many hot topics being discussed by members of God's
ekklesia today, one of the hottest seems to be the controversy
over exactly what a woman's role during church services might be!
No one doubts that the female member of the Body of Christ
has many important and valuable functions to perform: help meet
for her husband, mother of her children, friend of others in the
ekklesia, and support functions too numerous to mention.
The Bible plainly states that women have, in the past,
served as prophets (Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5),
and even ministers (see next article), helping powerful
evangelists to better learn the Way (Acts 18:24-28). Women are
also destined to serve again as prophets in the end times (Acts
2:17-18).
Yet, there is little in the Greek scriptures that would
indicate that any woman ever took on the duties of congregation
leader (pastor or elder) or teacher in any of the New Testament
congregations. From what we see in scriptures, there was
apparently a set role that women were to take in the
congregation, just as there are roles which men must take in the
congregation.
COMMENT(Keith Hunt):
The function of "teacher" of the Scriptures within the Body of
Christ, was evident, from the example of Priscilla as recorded in
the book of Acts. So also the example of Philip's four daughters,
who are classified as giving "prophecy" (Acts 21). Obviously
they did "teach" but it is true as pointed out above that there
is no NT proof these women were ever "ordained" to the Eldership,
that they ever functioned as congregational pastors or elders.
I have covered this situation quite thoroughly in part one of
this study. End comment.
The WAY:
WOMEN IN SOCIETY
Most of us are aware that the role of women in our society
has changed dramatically over the past hundred years or so. Many
historians and sociologists point to World War I as the turning
point in our western society. The bulk of an entire generation of
young men went to war and never came back. There was such
enormous bloodshed during the Great War of 1914-1918 that
horrified statesmen and men of influence insisted that war must
come to an end. The Great War needed to be the "war to end all
wars!" The League of Nations was formed with the intent of
establishing world peace, but it failed in its task, collapsing
under the looming storm clouds of World War II.
Let's look at some of the sociological factors that were
involved as a result of this first Great War. With such a large
reduction in the number of men in society during and after World
War 1 more women had to carry the weight of responsibility in
feeding and caring for their families. With women's increased
responsibility and social contact came the desire for increased
interaction as fully functioning members of society, and the
movement supporting women's right to vote became a burning issue
of the day in the United States. With the passage of the Women's
Suffrage Act in 1920, women at last became voting equals with men
as citizens and members of society. At least, that was the ideal.
During World War II, as another generation of men was
drafted and sent off to war, someone was needed to run the
factories to produce the weapons of war, and again the women
came to the aid of their countries. "Rosie the Riveter," a
fanciful female American steelworker, became the world's ideal
for women getting out there and working hard to support their men
in uniform, so we could win the war.
Following World War II, when the fighting men and women came
back to their place in the work force, it became difficult for
women to simply disappear back into their traditional mold. It
became apparent that, not only was the world freed from the
terror of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but our women had also
found that they could, indeed, work as hard as men and produce as
much output, and earn livings right alongside the men. Not only
was the world freed, but our women found that they were also
freed from the old mold!
During the decades following World War 2, massive upheavals
in western civilization took place. Today we see women taking an
increasingly responsible role in running the affairs of business
and government. However, at the same time more and more men are
finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find gainful
employment with enough salary to support a family, thanks in part
to the increased competition for available jobs.
Today, in our emancipated society, our girls go through
school and on into college right alongside our boys, and our
women go out and compete equally with our men for jobs. At the
same time, we see many of our young women no longer looking
forward to raising a family as a primary goal in their lives, but
rather setting career goals and acquiring material possessions.
The American ideal, along with the ideals of other Western
nations, is that no person is superior to anyone else because of
their race, religion. or sex. Such is the society in which we
find ourselves today.
Today, amid this backdrop of social equality, we must
attempt to determine where our women fit into our religious
practices, and how we can utilize the talents they bring to
church services without violating God's commands in the Bible
regarding women in the ekklesia.
DEFINING THE DEBATE
There are two major viewpoints among church people regarding
the role of women. Both perspectives deal with whether a woman
may participate in church services, or in what way a woman may
participate. Both sides bring in scriptural evidence to support
their claims. The difference is mainly in how people of each
viewpoint read the scriptures.
The traditional view is that women do not have any role at
all in leading services or in sermonizing, although few people
object to a woman singing along with hymns or performing a
musical offering as a soloist. We might look on this as the
"conservative" point of view.
The other outlook, which we might think of as being more
"liberal," would allow women to have full participation in
services, including making presentations or leading Bible
studies.
A more excessive aspect of this second viewpoint would
permit a woman to pastor a congregation. but that's not within
the scope of this article. We're examining the issue of whether
a woman should be allowed to speak during services, or teach a
lesson. (We might mention in passing, though, that none of our
editors believes that women ought to take on the role of church
pastor or religious leader, although we have seen it done in
extreme circumstances, when it has been necessary.)
COMMENT(Keith Hunt):
I'm not at all sure if by what is stated in this article, the
idea is being taught that women can lead in church services with
"teaching" in sermonette type speeches or discords, although they
state above that none of their editors believe that women should
function in the role of pastor or religious leader. Paul nor any
other writer of the NT ever addresses the subject of women being
ordained to the Eldership and pastorship of congregations. As
other writers on this subject have seen, Paul, in giving Timothy
and Titus instructions as for the qualifications for the
Eldership, so gives some instruction that would only apply to
men.
It would seem that in the NT church, the issue of women ever
becoming part of the Eldership/Pastor function of congregations
and the Church of God, was a "none" issue.
The Jewish mind would naturally not conceive the idea, and
neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit ever led them to think
otherwise. But the subject of whether women could "teach" in a
sermonette/sermon type discord when the "church was come
together" is addressed by Paul. And is the subject of this
article and my comments. End comment.
The WAY:
CONTRASTING VIEWPOINTS
Two passages of scripture appear more frequently than any
others in the discussion of this topic. Let's review these
briefly.
Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation, "Let your women
keep silence in the churches [Greek ekklesia]: 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 [ekklesia]" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
KJV).
To the evangelist Timothy, Paul wrote, "Let the woman learn
in silence with all subjection. But l suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence" (I Timothy 2:11-12, KJV).
For many people, that constitutes a clear "Thus saith the
Lord" on the subject. Women are not to speak during church
services, and are to remain silent.
But there are some problems involved -- not with Paul, or
with what he wrote, but with our understanding of what Paul
actually wrote, which then leads to misunderstandings about what
he meant.
One problem arises when husbands accept this "husband as
absolute ruler, woman as subservient" concept, and carry it home
with them, so that the wives are expected to keep silent
at home, as well! Fortunately, that doesn't take place in all
homes. Another problem comes from the idea that women are
inferior, intellectually or otherwise, and have no business
trying to use their brain power in the "man's world" of preaching
and teaching.
COMMENT(Keith Hunt):
Those men or husbands who would take the comment of Paul home
with them, really do have a problem of both reading and vain
authority. Paul was speaking in a "church" context, "when you
come together" (1 Cor.11:18 through to chapt.14:26 and end of
chapter). We have seen (in part one) that women like Priscilla
did not keep silent and did teach the word to others, even to
men, OUTSIDE of "when you come together." They did teach outside
of the setting of official church services.
In Paul's mind, the teaching and guidance of the congregation
"when they come together" in official church services was to be
looked upon as pastoring the flock of God, and to him that was
part of the qualifications of those qualified men (not all men
were qualified either, otherwise there would be no need for
having qualifications for Eldership) who had been called and
chosen to pastorship of the flock of God. In Paul's mind and
from his clear statement to Timothy, that function of the church
was not given to women, who had been created different than men.
This difference of mind between men and women, has come to notice
in many scientific studies in the last 20 years, and has been
shown on many TV news programs during the 90's. But many still
will not admit to this now proven fact. End comment.
The WAY:
So we need to ask some specific questions: What does Paul
mean when he says "speak," "silence," "subjection," or "in the
ekklesia"? Are women to remain absolutely silent, not singing,
not allowed to cough, or to comfort or discipline their children?
Most people would be quick to say, "Well, of course that's not
what it means."
Then, what does it mean "to speak" -- does Paul mean any act
of vocalization, or does he mean making a formal, prepared
presentation? Where in the law does it say women are to be silent
during church services? Why must they ask their husbands at home
in order to learn anything - did Paul consider women to be too
dense to understand what the teacher is saying when he is saying
it?
Why would it be a shame for a woman to speak in the
assembly? What does "in the church" mean --during an assembly of
the ekklesia, or every minute of her life after she is
baptized? Does it mean during "formal church services" but not
during Bible studies or open forums? Why should women be
subjected into Silence, and how is vocalizing usurping authority?
We need to understand that Paul was not violating other
principles he had already established. He had written in another
place that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all
one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:28-29). On
another occasion he wrote, "...there is neither Greek nor Jew,
circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor
free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11). These
passages tend to make it sound as if Paul was actually in favor
of equality among all the members, so that no distinctions were
drawn between Christians from various races or backgrounds, or
from either sex. This doesn't match with the idea that women are
to be treated virtually as inferiors.
Yet, on the other hand, those who wish to have women
participate fully in services, with no restrictions on speaking
or leading, may in fact be violating Paul's apparently clear
commands quoted earlier. If that's the case, there may he
problems with the more liberal viewpoint, as well.
As is often the case, the truth of the matter may very well
lie somewhere in the middle. It's possible that both of the
extremes are wrong. We always encourage our readers to examine
all the facts before making up their minds. With that in mind,
we need to seek a greater understanding of these scriptures, to
help us answer these questions.
Whichever side of this debate anyone may favor, the most
important thing we can do is to examine our own motives, deep
down inside, and determine if we are truly set to accept God's
will on a matter, and do as His word teaches. If that is not our
true motivation, we may find that we are merely attempting to
further our own agenda, or put our own interpretation of
scripture on an equal footing with what God wants us to do. If
that's the case, we need to stop and make sure our motivation is
pure. If it isn't, this will demonstrate to God that we are still
weak in our human condition. Our main motivation must always be
to serve and please God! Once we have that straight, we can
proceed with our studies, no matter what the subject matter
may be.
COMMENT(Keith Hunt):
To the last sentences I add my Amen. A love of the truth, a
hunger and thirst after truth and righteousness, a desire to be
willing to be corrected, and to want the Lord to lead us into all
truth through the Spirit, is the heart of the matter. Only with a
respectful fear and trembling before the Word of God will we be
humble enough for the Almighty to lead us into truth, and a
growing in the grace and knowledge of our Savior Christ Jesus.
End comment.
The WAY:
A WOMAN'S ROLE IN ANCIENT SOCIETY
We need to go back still further in time to get a better
overall picture of how women fit into various cultures throughout
history. "A woman's place" during most of human history has
been a place of subjugation, second class citizen status, or that
of a piece of property which can be bought and owned. The concept
of a woman having any kind of "rights" would be laughable
to men of many past generations. It might be difficult for us to
place ourselves mentally into that type of setting, but doing so
will help us to understand just how it was that this new sect of
Christianity, this new Way of life, differed so radically from
the way people had been accustomed to living.
The Apostle Paul wrote his general epistles to
congregations of believers living in Gentile areas of the Roman
Empire. The secular Roman/Grecian culture of the day was
strongly influenced by the pagan philosophers, primarily Socrates
(470-399 B.C.), Plato (427-347 B.C.), and Aristotle (38~322
B.C.). Socrates taught, for example, that in every regard women
were "the weaker sex," and that being a woman was a punishment,
since women were halfway between being animal and human. (It
might be interesting to learn what kind of women were in
Socrates' life --what his mother was like, or his sisters, or his
wife, etc. for him to have developed such a strong dislike
toward half the human race!)
In the Greek culture of that time, the men loved to get
together and discuss philosophy, or go to sporting events, while
the women stayed behind, never being allowed to venture out of
the house very far. Social, cultural and educational
opportunities for women were very limited. Aristotle furthered
the notion of sexual inequality with comments such as these:
"The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in
obeying." "The difference between husband and wife is like that
of a man's soul and his body, as the soul is meant to command the
arms and legs."
Later, the philosopher Zeno (335-265 B.C.) objected to how
men used women so freely for recreational purposes. He was not
concerned with the plight of women, but rather that men were in
this way distracted from the more pure and preferred pursuit of
philosophy!
Zeno's followers became known as the stoa poikite (or
painted colonnade) in the marketplace in Athens, which was
apparently the spot from which Zeno chose to teach. The
Stoics became champions of celibacy and restraint. Women were
considered a distraction and a temptation to men.
By the time of Christ, the well-known Jewish philosopher
Philo (15 B.C. - 50 A.D.), a resident of Alexandria, Egypt, was
attempting to bring Jewish thought more in line with the
Hellenistic world in which they lived, and his writings combined
aspects of Plato with biblical subjects. Philo also taught a
disdain of womanhood along the lines of the Greek philosophers'
teachings. Later, Josephus, the Jewish historian, continued in
the same vein, although the well known Jewish sage Gamaliel, who
appears briefly in the Bible (Acts 5:34; 22:3), apparently did
not concur with the negative view of womanhood.
An interesting historical note about Philo: He believed
that God was completely removed from the affairs of men -- an
unknowable God. He postulated a second God, who would be an
intermediary between the unknowable God and His creation. Philo
named this intermediary "Logos." Of course, we know that the
Greek word logos means "word," or "spoken utterance," and
is translated so in John 1:1. However, Philo interpreted this
Logos to be the sum total of the eternal thoughts and ideas, and
the creative power, that had gone into creating the universe. It
looks as if the influence of Philo's writings and teachings
reached into the New Testament church, because Paul confirmed
that it is Christ who is the mediator between God and man (1
Timothy 2:5). John later wrote in the beginning of his gospel
that the Logos was, indeed, the One who had created all things
and had come down from heaven as a human (John 1:1-14).
COMMENT(Keith Hunt):
To think that the NT writers got true theological ideas from
Philo is to me "far out man" just far out. More likely it was
Philo who was influenced by Christianity as he lived until
50 A.D. Then again, there were Jewish concepts of the Godhead
that were not that far removed from the truth, as Christianity
was at first a Jewish religion, I mean Jesus was a Jew from the
tribe of Judah, and they did have the sacred OT Scriptures where
the truth of God is proclaimed and recorded. End comment.
The WAY:
From the first century A.D. forward, there was a tendency
among leaders in the increasingly apostate Christian church to
interpret scripture according to the Greek viewpoint, es-
pecially in the budding Roman Catholic Church, and later in its
Protestant descendants. In the 13th century, for example, Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) systematized the religious beliefs
of his church and brought them into a closer harmony with ancient
Greek ideals, including the negative view of womanhood. He and
later theologians thus interpreted Paul's writings according
to this world view.
COMMENT:
All that may well be true to a point, but what Paul wrote is
Scripture, inspired by the Spirit of the Lord, and must be
understood in the light of all Scripture, letting the Bible
interpret itself and putting scripture with scripture. Greek
ideas, viewpoints, philosophy must be discarded.
And what man has to say about what Paul said, must also be taken
with a grain or a bag of salt. End comment.
The WAY:
Readers of "The WAY" are aware that the King James Version
of the Bible is not the pure and authoritative English
translation we had been led to believe that it was. Rather, King
James himself, and his politics, directly influenced the
translators. History shows that, not only were variant
translations in the margin not allowed by King James, but all
other English translations (Wycliffe, Geneva, Coverdale, the
Great Bible, etc.) were destroyed by fire, along with some of
the people who owned them and refused to give them up! The
majority of English language thought on the Bible and religious
matters since that time has leaned heavily on the King James
Version. The KJV was the primary translation of the Worldwide
Church of God under Herbert Armstrong. Therefore it's only
natural that some of the KJV's biases crept into his religious
thought and, as a result, into ours.
COMMENT:
Mistakes are evident in the KJV, not a few, but no major truth or
doctrine of the Eternal is corrupted by that translation. There
are just too many passages and verses on all of the Lord's
important truths and doctrines in the NT, for any group of
scholars (including those of King James) to try to deliberately
tamper with in order to secretly try to foster their particular
teaching on such as we are studying here. They would have to
re-write the entire NT if not the whole Bible to successfully
attain their clandestine plan. And the KJV scholars never came
close to doing that - rewriting the Bible. The so-called plot of
King James is in the main a fabrication of some person's mind and
imagination, as they were dreaming some nightmare.
And I well remember articles being published in the early
editions of the Plain Truth (back in the 60's) that showed some
of the errors of the KJV. Certainly at that time and way before,
Herbert Armstrong and the theology College he founded, had at
their disposal copies of the Greek NT just as other theology
schools had. Any in-correct teaching on the part of HWA and the
WCG in those days, was not because of the King James Version of
the Bible. End comment.
The WAY:
This brief tour through history may help us to see how our
own view of womanhood may be skewed because of what came before
us, and even by our own trusted Bibles concealing the truth
rather than revealing it! We're not going to suggest that the KJV
says "black" when it should have said "white," but we need to
come to a deeper understanding of some of these verses by
examining them more closely. When we note that women in the first
century assembly were treated differently than they had been
either in the Jewish synagogue or in Hellenistic society, that
tends to point out the discrepancy in our current understanding.
The women of the ekklesia were apparently treated better than
they were elsewhere, which may also have resulted in the large
number of righteous women mentioned in many scriptures.
COMMENT:
We can see women in the Church of God in the first century were
treated with much more dignity and respect simply by the way
Christ Himself treated them. Hence His perfect example would have
been followed and taught by the apostles to everyone, in sermons,
teachings, and in living the example that Jesus set for everyone.
So it should be no secret nor should it be hard to find this
truth in the pages of the NT. All this still does not negate
the truth of what Paul was inspired to write about the role and
the place of "to teach or not to teach" for women, when the
church was to come together into one place (1 Cor.11:20). End
comment.
The WAY:
A NEW AND DIFFERENT WAY
Paul and the other apostles and disciples came preaching,
not just about Jesus and salvation, but about a new Way of life!
Coming into the fellowship meant not only giving up a life of
sin, but also re-thinking the meaning and purpose of life. A wife
was elevated from the status of a slave, an animal, or an
inferior life form, to a fully functioning partner -- a help meet
for her husband, and co-heirs together of the grace of life
(1 Peter 3:7).
What is a "help meet"? The term has often been mispronounced
as "help-mate." This tells part of the story, but a fuller
understanding of the role of the wife is needed, and Paul was
there to teach that new Way.
COMMENT:
The truth of the Eternal had always been there. It was some of
the religious leaders of Judaism that had perverted and twisted
and forgotten it. Jesus came and swept away the falsehood, and
then the Spirit was given to clean the mind and renew the truth
that was always there in God's word, as to the "why" and the
"role" of the creation of women in the structure of marriage, the
family, the church congregation, and personal salvation. The
truth had always been there as to the liberty that every woman
had in telling others (men and women, and all who would listen)
about the wonderful ways of the Lord and His truths.
This is clearly evident in the Gospels with the examples of the
prophetess Anna, the woman at the well in Samaria, and others we
have discussed fully in part one of this topic. Paul introduced
no new theology, only conformation as to the truth already
understood in Israel as to the role and function that women were
to practice in the church when it "came together into one place."
End comment.
The WAY:
If we look back to Genesis, we can read the term: "And the
LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground
the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of
the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that
was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to
the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for
Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18-
20).
The word "meet" used in this sense is an obsolete word, no
longer in use in today's English. It means "fitting," or
"appropriate." The phrase "help meet" simply means a suitable or
appropriate helper. The phrase is translated from the Hebrew
'ezer' (Strong's #5828), which in these two verses is translated
"help meet" in the KJV, but the other 19 times it appears in
Scripture it is translated simply as "help." Eve was a suitable,
appropriate help for Adam, in the context that all the other life
forms existed as male and female.
Paul's writings emphasize that, in Christ, there is no need
for the separations that existed between people of various races,
nationalities, status in life, or even the social barriers that
existed between genders. There is no reason, in Christ, to "put
down" another member of the assembly because of being a Jew,
slave, barbarian -- or a woman. Christianity brought a new
meaning to the idea of the wife as an appropriate helper. Truly,
this was a new and different Way!
COMMENT:
It was a new and different way only in respect to the false
teachings, customs, and practices of the Pharisees, who in many
ways had rejected the commandments of God (as Jesus told
them) to hold to their traditions and man made ideas (many
towards women). It was a new and different way only in respect
to the wrong false practices and mind-set of the Gentile
nations towards women. It was not new in respect to how the
Eternal had always, from the beginning, established how women
should function in marriage, in motherhood, in raising
children, in their personal relationship with their God, in
sharing with others the word of their Lord, and in the role they
were to take when the church "comes together."
What this article is now going to zero in on, amounts to about
ONE to TWO HOURS a week (if the church calls for an official
congregational "come together in one place" Bible study each
week, maybe a total of Three hours, or a little more) and as I
have shown before in part one, this amount of time is very small
indeed when we compare it with all the other hours of the week
that every women has, to freely teach the word of the Lord to
others as led by the Spirit of Christ. Let us try to keep it all
in proper perspective. End comment.
The WAY:
GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
What about the verses we quoted earlier in this article,
indicating that women had little or no part in the life of the
ekklesia? We can derive a greater understanding of the words
quoted in the New Testament scriptures by going back to the Greek
and examining them in more detail.
We must remember that, no matter which translation of the
Bible we use, it's only a translation! We can often gain more
understanding of what was meant in any given passage by
consulting the original languages. Is it possible that there
might be subtle shades of meaning which have been lost, or at
least concealed, because of the improper translation of the Greek
thought? As we have seen in other word studies, this is exactly
the case!
COMMENT:
Is it really exactly the case? Did the KJV translators try to
hide something so women could be "kept under" and so men would
run the show in church services? Or was it from the beginning
God's intent and directive that men should lead in the "teaching"
during official congregational worship services? End comment.
The WAY:
Part Two:
1 Timothy 2
Let's consider the well known verse used to forbid women
to have any vocal part in any teaching taking place on Sabbaths:
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:12, KJV).
Let's begin by defining who is being discussed in this
passage. Notice the context: "First of all, then, I urge that
entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on
behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in
order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness
and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator
also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:1-5,
NASB).
Each of the words "man" and "men" emphasized above are
translated from the Greek word anthropos (Strong's #444), which
primarily means any human being, not just the males. We could
restate this passage to say that prayers could be made on behalf
of everyone, that God desires all people to be saved, and there
is a mediator between God and mankind, the human Jesus Christ.
These would all be satisfactory translations of anthropos.
A change takes place in the Greek, though, which is lost on
the English language readers. Notice verse 8: "Therefore I want
the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without
wrath and dissension." This time, "men" is translated from
another Greek word, aner (Strong's #435), which has the meaning,
not just of mankind in general, but more specifically of the
husbands! The word is used to denote the man rather than the
woman, and an adult male rather than a juvenile male.
COMMENT:
The word "aner" is used for the MALE, not just "husband." You can
see this in the Englishman's Greek Concordance, where every place
is listed where it is used in the NT.
Yet, the writers of this article lead you to their thinking by
saying, "but more specifically of the husbands." Is it only the
husbands and not the wives that are to pray lifting up holy
hands? Can the wives(if we are to take this word to mean
husbands) never pray in a family setting at home? No other verse
in the entire Bible comes close to teaching such an idea.
They will tell you later that when the Greek words for woman and
man used here are in close proximity to each other, we are to
understand them to mean "husband" and "wife."
So, in verses 9-10, is it only wives that this adorning applies
to? And at home to boot! Are the single women and widows
excluded! No! This instruction for women in verses 9 and 10
applies to ALL women, not just wives. So also the instruction in
verse 8 is for MEN not "husbands" only. And in the context of
all men and all women in congregational worship services, Paul
was instructing Timothy that it was the "men" (married, single,
divorced, widower) who should pray, and that women (married,
single, divorced, widow) should dress modestly (not as if going
to some fancy dress ball with the King of England) and
especially with the attitude of good works, true humble
Christianity. End comment.
The WAY:
But does this mean that only the husbands are to pray? Let's
continue: "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper
clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold
or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works,
as befits women making a claim to godliness. Let a woman quietly
receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to
remain quiet" (verses 9-12).
Here, the word "woman" is translated from gune (Strong's
#1135), and can mean "women" in general, but in proximity to the
word aner (husband), it can only mean "wife." "Man" in verse 12
is again translated from aner.
COMMENT:
There it is; the two words when in proximity, then "gune" can
only mean "wife." But who says? Where is the "thus says the
Lord" on that bit of grammar? Where is the Bible verse
that tells you that rule of speech - in English or Greek? End
comment.
The WAY:
A note on language usage: When aner and gune are used in the
same context, the proper translation would not be "man" and
"woman," but rather "husband" and "wife."
COMMENT:
We have seen that the context and LOGIC of verses 8 to 10 would
disprove that idea. Besides that, the Greek language did have
other words for the specific understanding of "husband" - "wife."
Paul could have used those words. Or, He could have said "the
married man" and "the married woman" (such language he used in 1
Cor.7) to make sure Timothy and everyone reading his letter would
have no doubt that he was in this section only referring to the
married. End comment.
The WAY:
Often, at the end of wedding ceremonies, we can hear the
familiar phrase: "I now pronounce you man and wife." This is a
mixture of definitions. The preacher might better pronounce them
to be "husband and wife." It's evident that they are a man and a
woman. The preacher would probably never pronounce them to be
"husband and woman." But "man and wife," although incorrect, has
become acceptable in our language.
....................................................... To be Continued
Women in the Church? #2Answers to various arguments WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH SERVICE....CONTINUED, PART TWO
The Way:
There is a similar situation in the case of the Greek words
aner and gune. They are understood to mean "husband" and "wife"
when used together, and to translate them as "man" and "woman"
actually conceals the true meaning of the Greek text!
COMMENT:
Who says these two Greek words when found together are always to
be understood as "husband" and "wife"? Where is such a rule
found in the pages of the Bible? You need to remember that the
NT was written in "common" Greek, not "classical" Greek of the
Universities, and upper highly educated people. The NT was
written in everyday down to earth language of the common people,
this is now a known fact. Then, you need to remember the Bible
does not come with a grammar text rule book, like some computer
programs do. My WordPerfect program comes with a "spell check"
and "grammar check" built in, the Bible does not. In fact the
original manuscripts of both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT had
one letter after another, no spaces, no sentences, no paragraphs,
no punctuation whatsoever. In fact the OT Hebrew originally did
not have even any vowels.
You will notice that in their statement above, they do not quote
any book on NT grammar that was written along with the NT books.
As far as I know no book on NT grammar has been discovered, that
was written in the first century A.D. to explain all the verses
of the NT in grammar form. So their dogmatic statement is just
human reasoning or conjecture, or at best based upon classical
Greek or modern Greek grammar. Besides all that talk about the
rules of grammar, there is nothing to say the writers of the NT,
using common Greek, had to follow any rules of grammar. I
personally do not follow all English grammar rules in my
writings, after all, rules of grammar are only the invention of
other humans, and language does change over the process of time,
and so does spelling and so does grammar. The Americans do not
spell all English words as do the British (i.e. color-USA;
colour-British).
The argument above for the verses under discussion in 1 Tim. 2
can really bear no importance on the matter, as to determining
the truth of Paul's teaching and instruction in this section on
women's "teaching or not teaching in church services" nor also on
the section in 1 Cor 14 regarding the same matter. It is
especially the context of 1 Cor.14 that gives the truth of the
matter. The two passages go hand in hand, both must be taken
together. Paul was talking about the same topic within the
teaching of different contexts, and gave some different
explanations as to why he said the things he wrote were the
commandments of the Lord (1 Cor.14:37).
The Way:
The key to understanding this verse is in knowing the proper
translation of the Greek grammar for the verb "to teach." Paul
uses the word didusko (Strong's #1321), which Thayer's
Lexicon defines as: "(1) to teach, to hold discourse with others
in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses, to be a
teacher ... (2) to teach one, to impart instruction, instill
doctrine into one..." Paul was indeed referring to women in the
act of instructing! But that's not the whole story.
COMMENT:
It's not! Now it would seem to me that it is pretty plain,
especially in 1 Cor.14. The context and the EMPHASIS of Paul in
this chapter is "instruction" - "edification" - "teaching." See
verses 4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 24, 25, 31, 35. The whole idea of
the church coming together into one place was so all may learn,
be taught, be edified, be instructed in the ways of the Lord.
After Paul had talked about the gifts of the Spirit, the use of
tongues, the prophets and prophesying in the church as it came
together into one place (verse 23), and knowing that these gifts
of the Spirit could be given to women as well as men, he then
answers the logical question: Can women then in official church
services, use their gifts and teach and preach - expound the word
of the Lord to the congregation? His answer is clearly given.
He also answers the comment that would also naturally arise:
Well I have this gift and the Spirit just led me to preach and
teach before the church, I just could not help myself.
For Paul, there was no such thing as "I could not help myself,
the Spirit forced me to speak out to teach and preach before the
gathered assembly." For Paul, the Spirit never forces anyone to
do anything. Paul would reply: "And the spirits of the prophets
are subject to the prophets." Everyone can, in Paul's mind,
control themselves and use the gifts of the Spirit as God
directs, and when He directs. It was then after uttering that
statement that he said the women are to keep silent in the
church(when the church comes together in one place, official
services). His context of the whole chapter is to do with
teaching, expounding the word and ways of the Lord, what today we
would call preaching in sermonettes(short messages) and
sermons(long expoundings).
BECAUSE OF A COMMA
The Way:
There was another subtle difference between what the KJV
states and how most modern translations read. Notice again verse
12, from the NASB: "But I do not allow a woman [Greek: gune,
wife] to teach or exercise authority over a man [aner, husband],
but to remain quiet."
There is a comma added in the KJV text which is not in most
modern translations! Without the additional comma, the sense of
the sentence would be that Paul was not forbidding women to teach
in church services, but rather to both teach, and grasp control
from, their husbands!
If this is what Paul was saying, then many people have had a
misunderstanding of this verse for a long time. As we will see,
this is indeed what Paul was saying!
COMMENT:
Now how do you teach but not grasp control from your husbands?
Usually the teacher is in control over those being taught.
Usually they lead, they govern the situation, they control
the floor so to speak. Have you ever seen a teacher that does not
or is not able to grasp control of those they are supposed to be
guiding and teaching, be it men or women, or a mixture of both?
It soon degenerates into confusion and bedlam, certainly
discomposure.
Does the wife keep looking at her husband and somehow with her
eye or hand tell him she has not grasped control from him? Does
she give him some secret sign (only the two of them know about)
now and then to tell him he can take control if he feels she has
grasped control from him? Does he give her the nod to let her
know she has grasped control from him (as he sits there part of
the group being taught and led by her)?
Do you see some of the problems in executing this idea that the
wife can teach(what about women who are not wives or are widows?)
but not grasp control from her husband?
THE INFINITIVE MOOD
The Way:
If we look a bit more deeply, we will find that the grammar
Paul used for the phrases "to teach" and "usurp authority" are in
the present tense, active voice and infinitive mood. As we will
see, this changes the whole flavor of the translation and,
consequently, our understanding of the verse.
The infinitive mood signifies that the action spoken of
"pertains to continuous or repeated action, without any
implications as to when the action takes place" (The Complete
Word Study New Testament, ed. Zodhiates).
COMMENT:
The present tense is continuous action in the present ongoing
time. The "when" of the action would be determined by the
context. The context of what Paul is saying to Timothy
regarding women not teaching must be found in other parts of the
NT or other parts of the writings of Paul. And one major other
part of Paul writing on the same subject is 1 Cor.14 and it's
context is clearly given. It is when the church has come together
into one place for instruction and edification in the word and
ways of the Lord. The context of the whole NT shows as I have
before proven in part one, that women can OUTSIDE of the church
coming together into one place, speak about, teach about, preach
about, edify about, instruct about, write about, the word and
ways of the Eternal, to anyone, man or woman, teenager or child,
as the Spirit of the Lord leads and directs.
The Way:
Zodhiates comments on this passage at 1 Timothy 2:9-15: "The
key to understanding what the Apostle Paul is teaching is that
woman should not try to appear or act like men. In addition
to this, they should not attempt to usurp the position of their
husbands in the home and in the church. God has appointed
specific tasks for both women and for men. Childbearing is
reserved for women, just as the role of a husband is set aside
for men. Paul emphatically states that these were differences
created by God Himself.....
COMMENT:
Where in this section does Paul say that women were trying to be
like men? Does it say they were trying to "look" like men? He
talks about them dressing modestly and having good works. Such
could be said concerning men also. Can a woman not teach her
children, or other children in a grade school? Can she not teach
other people in her skill of secular work? How would she not
usurp and not grasp control over her husband in secular skill
teaching in her work, when her husband could be miles away
working in a different trade and skill?
In these specific verses of 1 Tim. 2 where does the word "church"
and "home" appear? They do not! So, we must look elsewhere in
the NT, and/or in the writings of Paul to find if there is any
other specific instruction on women "not teaching" and where that
injunction and command is to be carried out. We find it again
from Paul in 1 Cor.14 where the context is made very clear and
plain. It is when the church comes together into one place
for edification and instruction in the word and ways of the Lord.
The childbirth here spoken about is open for other
interpretations, as some commentators point out. In the Greek the
word "the" is present - "the childbirth." And as some point
out Paul could have had in mind THE ONE childbirth that came
through woman - the CHRIST! Hence verse 15 may not be talking
about anything to do with her home life as a wife per se, but
fulfilling her role in life, and knowing when and where to teach
or not to teach, how to outwardly adorn herself with moderation,
putting on good works, continuing in faith, love, holiness, and
self-control(sobriety), then she can be saved through the
childbearing of Christ Jesus.
The Way:
"In verse nine, the Greek word sophrosune [Strong's
#4997]... provides the clue for the interpretation of this
difficult passage. This Greek word, translated 'sobriety' [in
KJV], means 'the voluntary limitations of one's freedom of
thought and behavior,' or 'sober mindedness.' The truth
is that in Christianity women became free and equal to their
husbands. Nevertheless, there was always a danger that they might
take this freedom beyond the limitations that God had placed
when He appointed man as head over woman in the marital
relationship. No two people or things can be exactly the same.
The inherent differences in people and things must be recognized
by a sophron, or a 'sober minded' person. This is one who
recognizes his abilities and his limitations, and is mindful of
his behavior in certain given circumstances."
COMMENT:
This sober-mindedness, or self-control as the New KJV renders it,
also contains within it for a Christian, the understanding that
man was to lead in spiritual head of tribes, congregational
worship towards God. We certainly see this clearly brought to
light starting with Moses and the children of Israel. God
instituted a religious congregational (when you come before me
together in one place) worship service, and all who did the
teaching (and physical sacrificing of the animals at that time)
under that system were MEN. As they met in one place to worship
the Lord, those responsible for the teaching service were chosen
and/or ordained men.
There are no examples in the entire Bible, that any woman ever
taught or expounded or preached the word or ways of the Eternal,
during the time when the Church of God( in the OT or the NT) came
together into one place in an official worship service. That
expounding and teaching of the word of the Lord was always the
duty of men for the one to three hours a week that such
gatherings of the church were called.
The Way:
Zodhiates later comments, "Furthermore, the word for 'teach'
in this verse is the Greek infinitive didaskein (1321). In this
instance, it means 'to teach continuously.' The Situation
refers to the home, and assembly, or anywhere the husband and
wife may be interacting together. If this were the case, the
position of the husband as the head would be undermined, and
would not be in accordance with God's ordained order in creation.
A wife should place limitations on her speech. Paul does not want
women to be lacklustre or mute, but to be careful lest they go
beyond the bounds of accepted propriety.
COMMENT:
Oh, so now the wife must not continually speak or teach or preach
or expound the word in the assembly, in case the position of her
husband as the head would be undermined.
Hummm, so how much is continual? Do we have to have a
ministerial conference to decide the matter? Is she to stop
talking for say 5 minutes every so often, so it will not be
continual? Does she nod at him to tell him she is placing
limitations on her speech and he can take over for a while? What
if he is out of town for the weekend or for a month on business,
are these limitations of speech then discarded and not effective?
Can she then teach and preach continually without a five minute
break, or without having him take over for a while?
I mean to say, what do we define as "continuously"? Is a 5
minute expounding of the Scriptures not classified as
"continuously" but a 10 minute preaching or teaching would be
"continuously" hence not allowed, or her husband would have to
chime in with a two minute commercial break? Or would we
classify that if she takes a drink of water half way through her
sermonette or sermon, that would not be "continuously" and so
permitted?
Now that's just trying to arrange this "not continuously" within
the church, when it comes together into one place, but what about
trying to arrange it at home, when human nature and emotions are
more open and active. What then is "continuous" talk on the part
of the wife? Who sets the bounds, and by what standard? Where
are the examples of all this in the word of the Lord? Where are
some kind of time laws or rules or examples found to guide us and
the wives in determining what is "not continuously."? I can find
teaching and examples on how a woman of God can dress at times,
under different situations. I can find all kinds of teachings and
examples on the "good works" a woman should have, written in
the pages of the Bible. I can find examples of women teaching the
word of God to others (even to men) outside of the context of the
church coming together into one place, written in the pages of
the Bible. But, can I find anything about women "not
continuously" talking so to usurp authority over her husband, not
one word as to guide me on what is continuous talk for a woman,
hence wrong or sin for her.
The Way:
"Moreover, the word translated 'to usurp authority over' is
the Greek word authentein (831). Essentially, a wife's private or
public life should be beyond reproach and never undermine the
position that her husband has been given by God. Also, a wife
should never encroach upon the role of her husband."
COMMENT:
Ah, now finally we are down to "role" - the role of men and
women. As far as Salvation, a Child of God - being able to study
and understand the word of the Lord, having a reward in the
Kingdom based upon what you did with what you were given from the
Father, then there is no male or female, there is no Jew or
Gentile, all are fully equal. But that does not mean I as a male
can produce babies from my body in childbirth. No! Only women can
still do that. God did make male and female, and technically the
male was created first, and later the woman. The Lord intended
from the beginning to have certain functions or roles within
certain contexts, for both the male and the female. One of those
roles or functions was who would be responsible for the
"teaching, preaching, expounding" of the word and ways of the
Father and Christ, in the setting, context, of the church coming
together into one place.
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has written a whole book on this very
subject of the roles of men and women in the Church. I recommend
to the reader and those who want to study this subject in depth,
his book.
The Way:
Then, what Paul was saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 is: 'I do not
allow a wife to continuously teach, or to continually exercise
authority over, her husband"!
COMMENT:
That is what man says Paul was saying, but it just is not so,
just is not so at all my friends.
With what is stated that Paul was supposedly stating, we are back
to the problems of "continuously." So Paul, we could argue, did
not allow a woman to teach in services EVERY Sabbath, for that
would be "continuously." So Paul only allowed her to teach or
preach or expound the Scripture, once a month. Then he only
allowed a woman to teach in the congregational service under 10
minutes, otherwise it was "continuously" and so exercising
authority over her husband.
On and on we could go with our ideas of interpreting how to put
into practice the above explanation of what Paul was supposed to
have been teaching. And the ministerial conferences on the matter
would be endless and subject to change as new ideas were
presented.
The Way:
The husband is to teach the wife. The wife should not be
teaching the husband. For a husband to be asking his wife about
the scriptures (especially in those days when women were not
formally educated at all) is not appropriate, and does not fit
into the universal family concept found throughout all nations
and cultures, where the husband is the head of the household.
In today's society, there might be one exception to this
principle. If a wife has been attending church services for
years, as a member of the ekklesia, and then her husband is
called and comes into the assembly, the wife may likely have more
Bible knowledge than the husband. In this case, the husband might
not be able to answer the wife's questions because of a lack of
skill in the Word. A loving wife would want to bring her newly
baptized husband along in the faith by teaching him what she
knows, and there should be no problem involved with her sharing
her knowledge under these circumstances. However, the husband is
still the head of the family. The wife is still not allowed to
dominate, even if she has superior Bible knowledge.
COMMENT:
While in the main I agree with what is said above, the Bible is
speaking in GENERAL terms that the head of the wife and the
family is the husband. As pointed out above, there could be
individual situations where the wife takes the leading if she
knows more. That would be the husband loving his wife in the
right manner, and having enough common sense and wisdom, together
with humility, to know she should take the lead in that
circumstance. But now, give me a break with that last sentence.
Outside the setting of the church coming together into one place,
and the wife or the woman having more knowledge of the Bible
than the husband or the man, there IS NO RULE, there is no LAW
from God saying, "well it must be this way" or "it must be that
way." We are not told who had the most Bible knowledge between
Priscilla and Aquila when they instructed Apollos. It may well
have been the wife for all we know. We are just not told! In
those situations of expounding the truths of God to others
outside of church services, it is open floor, full freedom, as
the Spirit leads, and as the gifts of the Spirit have been given
to each individual. Naturally, a husband and wife will work as a
team with the love and respect and with the knowledge of each
others abilities(Eph.5:21-33; 1 Peter 3:7), to the best edifying
of those they are called to teach. And it could be the woman will
have more gifts and more ability to expound and
put into words the truths of the Lord than the man, and hence be
used more, and do more of the talking. This does not mean she is
usurping his authority as head. It means the head has enough
sense and enough love to know the best way to get the job done.
Before we continue let me say this about the idea that we should
understand 1 Tim. 2 to read "wife" and "husband." I have two of
the most popular Greek/English translations on the market today -
one by Green and the other by Berry. Both men would be classified
as Greek scholars. Neither of them translate 1 Tim 2 as "wife" -
"husband." Both men render the Greek into the English very
similar to the KJV. The reader may want to find as many
translations as possible from various Greek scholars (some as
individuals and some as groups of scholars who worked on
translating the Greek into English) and see how many of them
translate 1 Tim. 2 as "wife and "husband." I think you will be
hard pressed to find even a few from all there is out there. I
personally have looked at these following translations: RSV;
Living Bible; NEB; Phillips; Jerusalem Bible; NIV; Good News
Bible; Lamsa Holy Bible; Fenton Translation; The Everyday Bible;
New Living Translation; NKJV; and the KJV. All of them are
basically the same as the KJV.
USURPING AUTHORITY
The Way:
As we saw earlier, the phrase "usurp authority over" is
translated from the single Greek word authenteo (Strong's #831).
This is an unusual word. It only occurs this one time in the
Greek scriptures. Strong defines it to mean "to act of oneself,
i.e., (fig.) dominate." However, Thayer's Lexicon goes on to
define the word to mean, "(I) one who with his own hands kills
another or himself; (2) one who acts on his own authority,
autocratic; (3) an absolute master; (4) to govern, exercise
dominion over one."
Well! We can just see Paul telling Timothy, " I don't allow
a wife to instruct her husband or to take his life"!
COMMENT:
This is the interpretation of the writers based upon their faulty
idea that Paul is talking about only husbands and wives here.
What they are doing is picking the definition of the word that
fits best their theory. Certainly the word of the Lord clearly
states that murder is wrong for anyone to commit, including a
wife towards her husband, but a wife "instructing" her husband,
to go along with their argument for the sake of argument, that
is another matter altogether, and one that outside of the church
coming together into one place, is very doubtful as being from
the Scriptures. I know of no Bible verse that says a wife CANNOT
instruct her husband. The truth is she may be much better
qualified in certain areas to do just that - instruct her husband
where he needs to be instructed, including Biblical instruction.
Sure when all things are equal, the man should be the head
and the leader in the home of Biblical knowledge, that's why Paul
spoke with a GENERAL statement in 1 Cor.14 when saying if the
woman, when in church services wanted to learn anything
(concerning what the men may be saying in their teaching of the
way of the Lord) she should "ask her husband at home." That was
a general statement from Paul, when all things are basically
equal between husband and wife. He gave that general statement
without going into all the exceptions there may be to that
general and ideal way of life for husband and wife. All things
being equal, God wants the man to be leader and head of his
wife in spiritual knowledge, so he can answer her questions at
home, when she hears and learns things from the men in church
services, that trigger questions in her mind that she is not sure
what the answer is.
The Way:
Yet, Zodhiates verifies that this is a correct definition.
He defines authenteo as "A self-appointed killer with one's own
hands, one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a
genitive, to use or exercise authority or power over as an
autocrat, to domineer (1 Tim. 2: 12)"
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament).
Zodhiates also notes that, in Greek, a verb in the
infinitive form "has many more uses than it does in English, most
of which are idiomatic and difficult to translate properly." This
may well be one of those places!
COMMENT:
And it may well be that it is not one of those places. But an
additional place that goes together like hand and glove with the
instruction Paul gave on this same matter over in 1 Cor.14.
It is very possible that some are making this passage in Timothy
and the one in 1 Cor.14 to be much more complicated than they
are. I think Paul's reader (the brethren at Corinth, and the
minister Timothy) had no trouble in understanding Paul in his
directives here as he instructed them concerning the role women
were to practice in the "teaching, preaching, expounding" of the
ways of the Lord in official church services, when the church
came together into one place.
When we understand the context Paul is speaking in for uttering
this commandment, which he claimed to the Corinthians, was from
the Lord, then it really does not take a rocket scientist or a
Greek scholar to interpret it for you. You simply read it for
what it says and believe it for what it says. Paul was saying
that during the "teaching, preaching, expounding" of the word and
ways of the Lord, part of the coming together into one place,
the women were to remain in silence, listening and learning,
taking notes if you like, thinking about what was being said and
taught, and if there arose any questions about what she heard,
she was to take them home with her and ask her husband at home
for the answers. And that is it, pure and simple to understand. I
mean even a child can understand it. Paul did, for the sake of
those theologians in the church, give some reasons as to why
the Lord said it was to be this way during the instructional part
of the church service.
These verses are; 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35; and 1 Tim. 2:13, 14. They
have been thoroughly elaborated upon in such works as "Man and
Woman in Biblical Perspective" by James B. Hurley (Zondervan
Publishing House) and "Women in the Church - A Biblical Study on
the Role of Women in the Church" by Samuele Bacchiocchi (Biblical
Perspectives, 4569 Lisa Lane, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49103).
The Way:
Unquestionably, though, the overall sense of these two
verses is a clarification on how wives should submit to their
husbands (Ephesians 5:22).
COMMENT:
That is their understanding based upon the comments by Zodhiates,
which are rejected by nearly all other Bible commentators and
Greek scholars.
The Way:
In fact, with this new understanding of what Paul was
saying, we might better translate verses 11 and 12 along these
lines: "Let a wife learn in peace, fully subordinate; and I do
not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or domineering over
her husband; rather she is to remain at peace. I do not allow a
wife to continually teach or continually dominate her husband."
COMMENT:
Again, if we are to understand that this is what Paul said to
Timothy, then we are back to having to determine just what
constitutes "teach continually" and "continually dominate
her husband" which could lead to many arguments, differences of
opinion, and many ministerial conferences, with each church
finally doing its own thing. Some no doubt believing that full
sermons by women would not be "dominating her husband" or
"teaching continually."
The Way:
Notice how Zodhiates addresses these issues: "These verses
(1 Timothy 2:9-15) indicate that women were full and active
members in the early church. ... From an examination of 1
Corinthians 11:2-16, it is also clear that both wives and
husbands could pray and prophecy in the worship service. ... In
all this discussion, Paul's chief concern is that no woman would
be of immoral character" (Zodhiates).
COMMENT:
This is Zodhiates idea and you will notice he uses the word
"indicates" for it is obvious from the rest of the NT that it may
not have been so at all, and he wants to cover his butt.
Now to the often quoted section of Scripture in 1 Cor. 11:2-16.
Please read this section.
Try to find the word "church" or "assembly" or "congregation" in
this section. Try to find the phrase "when you meet" or "in the
church assembly" or "when the church comes together" or "when you
come together into one place." Try to find ANYTHING like those
words or phrases in that section of Scripture. You will not, for
one simple and plain reason.....THEY ARE NOT THERE!!
This section of inspired Scripture has NOTHING to do with church
services, or when the church assembly came to gather into one
place for official worship services. It has to do with ANYTIME
BUT that time of the church "coming together." It has to do with
men and women praying and speaking forth the words of the Lord in
their day to day lives APART FROM the church coming together!
Notice it! It is not until Paul starts another thought with more
instruction and correction on another subject that he introduces
the phrase "come together" and "come together in the church"
verses 17,18. His mind now goes to the many problems he knew they
were having at and in the church assembly when they did come
together into one place. The first problem and first correction
he delivers to them is that of HOW to observe the symbols of
the death of Jesus correctly. Notice how many times he uses this
phrase "come together" or "come together into one place" from
chapter 11:17 to the end of chapter 14. In that whole section
Paul addresses many problems he saw that they were having in and
during official church services. Before this section - starting
in chapter 11:17 - he was addressing problems on a general basis
of everyday life. The one exception is the man guilty of sexual
immorality in chapter 5. Paul there does say they should act on
this situation "when you are gathered together"(verse 4). He
does not come back to "assembly" problems again until chapter
11:17.
The Way:
What about verse 11? "Let the woman (wife) learn in silence
with all subjection" (KJV). Contrast that with the NASB: "Let a
woman [wife] quietly receive instruction with entire
submissiveness." Which is correct?
Zodhiates comments on the phrase "in silence with all
subjection":
"The subsequent term to consider is hesuchia (Strong's
#22711), translated 'silence.' In the NT it occurs numerous times
referring to tranquillity or the state of being undisturbed. This
should be the understanding in this verse. One must bear in mind
here that during the era of time when Paul was writing, it was
usually men who were the ones to receive an education. If this
word meant 'complete silence,' women would never have the
opportunity to ask questions or increase her knowledge of the
Scriptures. Simply speaking, the wife ought to be displaying a
tranquil spirit in her attempt to learn. The final word of key
importance in understanding the 'silence' mentioned in this verse
is hupotage (Strong's #5292), translated 'subjection' in KJV,
meaning 'to place in proper order.' ... Paul wanted to express
the idea that in the wife's desire to learn, she should respect
her husband's position over her in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3)."
COMMENT:
None of these words explained above give forth any proof that the
case Zodhiates wants his readers to believe is the truth of the
matter (trying to say Paul is talking about wives and
husbands in the marriage relationship). His comment and idea
about if this did mean "complete silence" women would never "have
the opportunity to ask questions or increase her knowledge of the
Scriptures" is blown to shreds by Paul's words in verse 35 of 1
Cor.14. It would seem Zodhiates does not want you to see that
verse, or he himself cannot see it (what you call trying to proof
text your ideas by selecting only certain verses while completely
ignoring others on the same subject), or has conveniently
forgotten it is there.
For Paul it was quite simple, women during the "teaching,
preaching, instructional" part of the church service, were to
remain silent. They learned from what was being instructed
just like everyone else sitting in the congregation, thus being
edified in the Scriptures. If questions came to their minds
concerning anything being taught, they were to note it, and
"ask their husbands at home."
You will notice Paul did not say they were to run to the elders
after services and ask them.
Paul was indeed upholding the marriage and the family structure
as given by the Lord from the beginning. The head of the woman is
the man (1 Cor.11:3). The women with husbands were to first try
and have their husbands answer their questions concerning
spiritual matters they may have heard in services and had
questions on. How many in the church of God follow that
instruction today? In a lot of cases and in a lot of churches it
has been forgotten or has been neglected to be taught.
The Way:
Part Three:
1 Corinthians 14
We have seen that Paul was not, after all, forbidding women
to teach during the assembly.
COMMENT:
I submit we have not seen that at all proved by anything so far
said from the above authors of this article or from Zodhiates.
The Way:
Setting aside that portion of the discussion for now, we
next need to consider the other passage of scripture most often
used in reference to women speaking in church.
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV), Paul says, "Let your women
keep silence in the churches [ekklesia]: 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 [ekklesia]."
Was Paul lamenting the shame of seeing a woman getting up
to address the assembled group, and saying it was not permitted
for them to do so? Many people read it that way. But let's
see if we may not have read more into this verse than is actually
there. We might ask a fellow church member, "Who will be
speaking at services this week?". When we ask this, we are asking
who will stand up in front of the congregation and deliver a
message or lead a bible study. This is how we define the word
"speak" in a church setting. But is this what Paul meant when he
said women should not "speak" in the assembly?
Let's read 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Paul is giving lengthy
instructions about speaking in tongues and proper decorum in the
assembly. Notice how often he mentions speaking in this
passage: "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual
gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in
a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one
understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But
everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening,
encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies
himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like
every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you
prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in
tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
"Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what
good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or
knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?... So it is with
you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how
will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking
into the air.
"Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world,
yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the
meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the
speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since
you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that
build up the church. 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....
"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to
instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brothers,
stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in
your thinking be adults.........
"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks
in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers
come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in
while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that
he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his
heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God,
exclaiming, 'God is really among you!'
"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. If anyone speaks in a tongue,
two -- or at the most three -- should speak, one at a time, and
someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker
should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. 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. As in
all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent
in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
sub-mission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire about
something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of
God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has
reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually
gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the
Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
Therefore, my brothers, he eager to prophesy, and do not forbid
speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting
and orderly way" (I Corinthians 14, NIV).
TO TALK OR SPEAK?
The words emphasized above have something in common: They
are all translated from the Greek word laleo (Strong's #2980).
This word does not mean getting up to deliver a prepared
message. Rather, laleo means primarily to utter sounds with the
voice, to use the faculty of speech. "Talk" would be a better
translation than "speak."
COMMENT:
Of course not. We can see from the context Paul is not really
talking about people preparing messages a week in advance. The
church at Corinth had many "spiritual gifts" which Paul knew very
well. That congregation had many who would speak the words of the
Lord, who would have revelations from the Lord, who could expound
the word of the Lord, right on the spot, there and then, without
doing any preparing ahead of time. So much so was this fact, that
there was no order in their services, and Paul was correcting and
instructing them concerning it. The fact remains people were
speaking with their mouths, call it "talk" or "speech" or
"instruction." Paul wanted "edification" for all present to be
the mark of the day, when the church came together into one
place.
................................................ TO BE CONTINUED
Women in the Church? #3Answers to various arguments WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH SERVICE......CONTINUED, PART THREE
The Way:
Have you ever been in an audience somewhere before a program
begins, and on all sides of you is the sound of talking from the
people around you, but you can't really tell what anyone is
saying? All you hear is the hum of people talking. That's a good
way of describing laleo. It's not necessarily intelligible speech
- it's just the sound of the human voice.
That's what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 14. If
you have received the gift of speaking in another language, but
it's a language no one else in the room understands, trying to
address the group in that language is pointless -- no one will
understand what you are saying! All they will hear is the sound
of your voice! That's the "speaking" (laleo) in tongues (glossa,
languages) Paul is referring to in this chapter.
What many people have missed is that Paul is not speaking
about tongues, and then about women. The Greek shows us the
unifying factor: Paul is discussing the subject of laleo, of
useless or non-edifying application of the human voice during
services! What Paul said was that women are not allowed to
laleo, and it is disgraceful for a woman to laleo in the church.
In this passage, Paul is not addressing women preachers at all!
COMMENT:
Wooww! Just wait a minute! Yes, Paul is speaking about tongues
that do not profit anyone if there is no interpreter. BUT he is
also speaking about a whole lot MORE than that. He is speaking
about "prophets" and "prophesying" - about speaking to edify and
instruct. His whole theme in this chapter was that of clear
instructional edification for everyone. In verse 26, he
acknowledges that everyone there had something they could
contribute, so was the magnitude of the gifts of the Spirit in
their congregation. He then sets about giving them instructions
on how order should be within their assembly during the service.
He even lays out for them that only SO MANY (with the gift of
tongues and those who could prophesy - speak the words of the
Lord) could speak and that IN TURN. He tells them there is no
such thing as "well I just could not help but speak, for the
Spirit made me do it" as the spirit of the prophet is subject to
the prophet. The Spirit does not force anyone to speak, it does
not just "take over" a person like a demon sometimes does that
enters an individual, and where that person then has no control
of what and when and how they do things. Paul instructs them God
and His Spirit do not function that way, where confusion is the
end result.
You will notice the LAST thing, before introducing his
instructions concerning women, that he talks about is NOT tongues
but it is the PROPHETS and prophesy. Those who can speak the
words of the Lord either by direct revelation on the spot, or
instruct and teach the revelation of God from the Scriptures. So
if we want to argue any "nearest" context in the Greek, for our
"women keep silence" issue, then it is not tongues but prophesy
that they are to be silent on.
The full truth of the matter is the WHOLE chapter context, that I
have already given above in earlier comments. But a repeat is
worthwhile.
Paul knew most of the congregation at Corinth had some gift of
the Spirit, including the women. They did not control those
gifts, they did not have order in the service, they were
all just letting it hang out as they say, anytime they felt like
it. Paul corrected them on their misuse of the gift of tongues
and how such a gift in the assembly should be used. He instructs
them on some order they should have in their service and even
limits certain gifts to two or three. He understands even the
women had some of these gifts, and knows the question will arise
(especially among the Jews there) about whether they are allowed
to use that vocal gifts in edifying and instructing the
congregation during the time when the church comers together into
one place. It is at the END of all his correcting and
instructions he gave to them that he answers that question, as it
would then cover ALL that he has given instructions on. Paul
answers the question of all women with any gift of being able to
teach, instruct, preach, the words of the Lord, by saying, THEY
are to be SILENT in that regard, even to the point of asking
questions. If they have any questions they are to ask their
husbands at home (a general statement, without going into the
exceptions of those who are not married, divorced or widows).
The Way:
In fact, Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5,
regarding men and women praying and prophesying with their heads
covered or uncovered, strongly implies that the women were able
to take part in worship, in praying, and perhaps even in teaching
(one of the definitions of prophesying) in the assembly.
COMMENT:
We have already show and proved that this section of Scripture in
1 Cor. 11 has nothing to do with "when the church comes together
into one place" but it does concern every man and woman in the
body of Christ on an every day basis outside of the church coming
together.
The Way:
Notice this footnote to 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 in the Key
Study Bible: "... it was not an instruction to all the men in
general not to permit any woman to speak in church, but to
husbands to guide and teach their own wives lest they produce
confusion and disturbance in a meeting. ..."
COMMENT:
Now let's use some logic and some common sense as to how Paul
wrote and the before context he wrote in. He had just gone
through expounding and explaining and correcting the errors of
speech the members of the congregation were practicing in the
church coming together at Corinth. He had made it clear there
was not only confusion in their services, but people speaking who
could not be understood by anyone. He then instructs them what
church services should be for - edification for all, and he
further lays down certain rules of how many can speak who have
certain gifts of the Spirit. This he tells them is in order
NOT to have confusion, for, under inspiration of the Spirit he
says, God is not the author of confusion. Plainly, he is telling
them that their confusion in services is from somewhere
else other than God, I think they would have understood where he
was telling them it was from, without naming any names of those
in opposition to the Lord, and who are part of the unseen world
of the created spirits.
If Paul, after saying all this, was now wanting the husbands to
make sure their wives were not part of this confusion, he could
have easily said after verse 33, something like this:
"Husbands, make sure you teach and train your wives at home, so
they will not bring any confusion in speech as they participate
in the teaching and preaching when the church comes together."
That's all he would have needed to say, for IF, and for the sake
of argument we shall say it was so, women were already fully
participating in the teaching, preaching, expounding of the word,
in the Church of God services everywhere, then a simple short
paragraph such as I have given above would have been all that
Paul would have needed to say after verse 33 of chapter 14, to
the husbands and the wives.
There would have been no need to have said anything about "the
law" or about "learning" or about "asking their husbands at home"
for everyone would have known women were on par with men in the
teaching and preaching during services. If there was any problem
with wives bringing in confusion during the teaching service then
a short sentence like above would have been all that Paul needed
to say.
Then such an idea that it was the women who were mainly
responsible for the confusion is a real slap in the face for
them. To think that bringing in talk confusion in the teaching
part of the church service is only a problem that women have, and
need some extra instruction at home under their husbands, to
control and overcome it, is not only a slap in the face towards
women but is a close-minded and blinded view to the fact that MEN
can have just as much a problem with confusion in talk when they
start going at each other and disagreeing over what the word says
or means. Men are just as likely to interrupt each other in
speaking, disagree over the meaning of a verse or verses, get
all emotional, and cause confusion in an open forum (as the
Corinthians obviously were practicing before Paul instructed them
about "order") as women are!
So who were going to teach the men lest they produce confusion
and disturbance in a meeting?
Then why would anyone want to teach another in the homes not to
cause confusion and a disturbance in the church meetings when
Paul had JUST NOW instructed them in the ORDER of things, so
there would be no confusion? He had just given them what he said
were the COMMANDS of the Lord. He had just instructed them in no
uncertain way about those who would give edification talks to the
congregation. He had instructed them HOW NOT TO BE IN CONFUSION!
To think that the women still needed further instruction
on the matter, makes out the women and wives to be either not
listening, not able to read, or just plain slow and dumb. Again,
it would be another insult and slap in the face for women.
Paul had a number of women that were workers with him in the
gospel. He wrote and spoke highly of them in not a few of his
epistles. To understand Paul as teaching and saying what
Zodhiates, the Key Study Bible, and the authors of this article
want you to accept and believe, is not only not understanding
Paul and his theology, but is also filled with much il-logic.
The Way:
"The word 'speak' should be taken to mean 'uttering sounds that
are incoherent and not understood by others.' Paul says that
instead it is better to have silence. Paul uses the same word
'keep silent' to admonish a man [any person, actually] who speaks
in an unknown tongue without an interpreter (vv. 28, 30). "
COMMENT:
So "keep silent" then does mean to "keep silent." Those who
could speak in a tongue were not to speak - keep silent - not
utter sounds of speech, IF they had no interpreter, or could
not interpret for themselves. So Paul said what he meant and
meant what he said. If the tongues speaker was to be silent, not
to speak (which is admitted to mean just that - not say
any words in edification, teaching, preaching, expounding, and
prophesy from the Lord) unless there was an interpreter, then
Paul also meant what he said and said what he meant, when he said
women were to keep silent and that it was not permitted unto them
to speak.
The context as we have seen is edification, teaching, expounding,
revelations, instruction from the Lord, not the mere fact of
saying "hello" to someone, or telling the children to stop making
a noise. Paul then clearly tells us that women are to "keep
silent" in teaching during services where instruction and
edification for the whole congregation is the purpose of coming
together into one place.
The Way:
"What Paul is saying is that only one man [person] must
speak at a time, for if two speak at once, there will be
confusion. ... The issue is not men versus women, but it is
confusion versus order. In God's sight, it makes no difference
who causes the confusion. It is a shame for any woman to bring
confusion into the local church (v.35), even as it is for any man
to do so."
COMMENT:
The issue up to verse 33 is first to correct and instruct about
the prevailing confusion that was present in the church service,
and to lay down rules for order. Then he addresses after all
that, the issue of whether women can use the gifts of the Spirit
they may have, in teaching, preaching, edifying the congregation
from the word or revelations of the Lord, during that part of the
service devoted to that purpose - teaching and edifying from the
Lord to the congregation, which he had just finished addressing
and laying down instruction.
The Way:
And again, as mentioned previously, the word gunaikes
(Strong's #1135, a derivative of gune) in verse 34 should not be
translated "women," but as "wives."
COMMENT:
Not so, it should be as nearly all Greek and English translation
give - women. Paul was meaning all women as shown in 1 Tim. 2,
where the instruction on dress and outward appearance for women
applies to all women, not just the married, and where the
instruction in verses 11,12 applies to all women not only to the
married.
The Way:
Once again, the point of the verse is that wives should
submit to their husbands. Paul isn't teaching the subjection of
women to men in general, but rather that husbands and wives fit
into the family unit ordained by God. Zodhiates writes that "the
duty of the husbands is to restrain their own wives from
out-bursts during the worship service. Whenever Paul speaks of
submissiveness by a woman, it is always on the part of a wife to
her own husband."
COMMENT:
Wow! Read that again where they quote from Zodhiates. Yes, I
guess he wrote it, they quote it. Now, in a world where many
nations had kept their women as practical slaves, and where they
were not permitted to go on to higher education, where they were
often looked upon as part of the "possessions" of a man. Where
the Jews could cast them aside with the stroke of a pen, and go
on to another one, or two, or three (polygamy was still allowed
in Jewish life), it would seem if we adopt the suppositions of
Zodhiates in what Paul was teaching under the sections we are
concerned with in this study, that there were some pretty wild
and powerful and emancipated wives in the Churches of God, who
would really "go to town" as they say, during the church come
togethers. It would seem they would rant and scream and put on
quite the out-bursts during worship service, so they needed to be
restrained in some fashion (maybe holding, maybe standing between
their wife and the person their wife was going to cat-claw, maybe
putting a rope around them and tying them down, maybe some other
type of restraining like a straight jacket) during services.
This was so bad that Paul even had to tell the husbands to teach
them restraint and to teach them to be under the husband's
authority, at home, somehow, in some manner.
Now, how would you do this at home, away from the situation of
many others coming together and where arguments could take place
if there was no order or an open forum was practiced? Would you
get the kids to confront their mother so she was close to an
out-burst, and then teach her to restrain? Would you call in the
neighbors and have them niggle your wife unto she was ready to
explode in vocal vociferousness, and then teach her to restrain?
Would you deliberately pick a fight with her to then teach her to
restrain from throwing the cooking pot at you?
I speak of course with tongue in cheek.
For the sake of the argument, we shall go along with the
supposition and theory of Zodhiates. By the time Paul wrote his
epistles it was just common practice within all the Churches of
God, that women were teaching, preaching, expounding the word of
the Lord in church services just as much as the men were. But
they were getting out of hand, just causing far too much
confusion, bringing too many out-bursts into the worship service,
and so Paul found it needful to tell the husbands to do some
teaching at home, so their wives would be more restrained and
come under their authority and be subject to them, not
usurping their husband's authority. How would he tell her she
had gone too far and was now usurping it over him? Would it be
if she spoke too often, or spoke too fast, or too slow, or too
continuously without a break for three minutes? Would it be if
he thought she was smiling too much at the other men in the
congregation? Or maybe, if she did not smile at him enough times
in any five minute period? Perhaps he would deem she had gone
beyond his authority if she did not allow him to speak, once
every ten minutes at least.
Maybe he would have to restrain her somehow if she laughed too
many times, or got a little emotional over a verse or point of
doctrine or someone else commenting on something.
I can see the people and couples and ministers of the church
spending large amounts of time trying to figure out how to
establish and practice this type of family instruction we are
to believe Paul was teaching to the husbands. Perhaps, when Paul
was alive he wrote it out for them in fine detail, but it got
lost along the way, and we today are left in the dark and left to
fend for ourselves, and figure it all out for ourselves. Oh, the
many hours of wrangling, disputing, arguing, fretting, and
confusion it would take and produce, to probably get nowhere in a
slow hurry. It would probably end up making as much sense as
the words "slow hurry."
The Way:
A DIFFERENT SET-UP
IN THOSE DAYS
But why should there be any extraneous talking such as this?
In our modern congregations, families sit together, and we all
sit respectfully and listen to what is taking place.
In ancient times, however, the seating arrangement with which we
are familiar was probably not what people were using. Note this
passage from the Jewish New Testament commentary in reference to
1 Corinthians 14:
"Sha'ul [Paul] is answering a question (7:1) the Corinthians
asked about wives discussing with their husbands what is being
said while it is being said. This would disturb decorum even
if the wife were sitting next to her husband; but if the
universal Jewish practice of the time (and of Orthodox
congregations today) was followed, wherein women and men are
seated separately in the synagogue, it would obviously be
intolerable to have wives and husbands yelling at each other
across the m 'chitzah (dividing wall)."
COMMENT:
Yes, of course it would be distracting and end in confusion if
many wives were asking their husbands questions about what was
being said, while it was still being said, while the speaker was
still teaching and expounding the word of the Lord. So Paul,
knowing that, also made sure his readers understood that his
directive for women to keep silent while the teaching part of the
service was under way, included even keeping silent concerning
questions their wives may have as the teaching service was under
way. They were to note their questions and ask their husbands for
answers when they were at home. And as I have already pointed
out, Paul was thus upholding the family structure by honoring the
husbands to answer their wive's questions and not the Eldership.
I would suppose if the husband did not know the answer he would
go to the Eldership for it, and then instruct his wife.
The Way:
EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Another possible explanation for Paul's instructions to
husbands about their wives "speaking out" in the assembly is
this: During Paul's time most women were not very well educated.
Men were the ones that delved deeply into the issues of the day,
especially the issues relating to theology. Imagine a doctrinal
message being given in Corinth that requires a foundational
understanding of the topic. In order for individuals to
contribute to the edification of the assembly, they would need a
deeper understanding of the topic.
There may well have been great differences in the
educational levels among the men and women of the Corinthian
congregation, which led to confusion at times. As it was written
on another occasion, "We have much to say, and it is difficult to
explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing. Although you
should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach
you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need
milk, (and) not solid food" (Hebrews 5:11-12, The New American
Bible).
COMMENT:
The fault with this reasoning is that it forgets again the
context of the chapter and the context of the church in Corinth.
Here was a congregation blessed with more GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT
than probably any other congregation in the Churches of God at
that time. The gifts of the Spirit are given to all (including
women) as the Spirit distributes. What lack of formal education
some of the women in the church had, having a gift of the Spirit
would nullify, and when it would come to teaching and preaching
and expounding the word of the Lord, many a man and woman would
excel if filled with not only the Spirit of the Lord but also a
gift from that Spirit.
The Way:
Imagine that we are the Corinthian congregation. Someone's
wife abruptly interrupts the meeting, on a fairly regular basis,
by asking a question in the middle of the discussion. It may
be a very good question. Yet, it would require such a digression
back into the fundamental levels of the topic that it takes away
from the edification intended for the whole group. To answer and
explain her question would not allow the topic to move forward.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, and occasional review
is good for everyone. The problem arises when this happens
week alter week. Some of the members have expressed feelings of
frustration over this situation.
Because we, in Corinth, wish to resolve this problem, and a
number of other problems we are currently experiencing in our
local fellowship, one of the leaders of the congregation sends a
letter to Paul in order to see how he would want us to handle
these situations.
Paul sends us the letter that would later be known as the
book of 1 Corinthians. In the section of his letter giving
instructions about how our assemblies should be conducted, he
addresses the problem of handling interruptions by wives asking
questions of their husbands during the meeting, a process that
slows down the learning in the assembly.
He tells us, "Let your wives be at peace and in control of
themselves in the assembly, for it is not permitted for them to
be continuously speaking out and causing a disturbance. They are
to be subordinate to their husbands as we are instructed in the
scriptures. If they want to learn more about what is being
discussed, they should ask their husbands later, for it is
totally inappropriate for wives to speak out and disturb the
edification process in the assembly" (authors' paraphrase).
This way, husbands and wives can prepare together, ahead of
time, and discuss the background of a discussion topic, so they
can both be prepared to contribute and learn.
This discussion, and the instructions about husbands and
wives given in 1 Timothy, should help us better to understand the
group dynamics that were taking place at Corinth in the middle of
the first century and how Paul instructed them to properly
conduct their meetings.
COMMENT:
Interesting scenario, but Paul's language is not what the authors
paraphrase. He could have used words like "peace" and
"self-control" and "continually speaking out." He could
have used words like "I hear your women are causing a disturbance
when the church comes together" and words such as, "I hear the
wives in your assembly are prone to out-bursts" or "as for the
wives asking questions while the prophet speaks." He could have
used words to say, "I hear the wives are speaking out and
edification is hindered." The Greek language had words for all
the above. Paul could have used them and written very similar
to what the authors give us in their paraphrase. BUT HE DID NOT!
And for one simple reason. That was not the problem as such, and
it was not the thought Paul was answering.
He was answering the logical question from all the talk on the
gifts of the Spirit that preceded (and all the instruction of
when, and how, and who could speak to edify, and some order given
in the number and control to be exhibited) up to verse 33, and
that question would be: Can the women use their gifts of the
Spirit in the teaching/preaching/expounding of the word to
edification, part of the church service? And Paul's answer was
"no" - they are to remain silent in this, even to the point of
asking no questions to their husbands about what is expounded,
but to save their questions and ask their husbands at home.
The Way:
WHAT LAW IS REFERRED TO?
Next we need to consider the enigmatic phrase, "as the Law
says" (verse 34). What law does Paul mean?
The King James Version really gives womanhood a connotation
of slavery in its translation of verse 34: "Let your women
(gune, wife] 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." Notice how the KJV translators
have added the italicized phrase, "they are commanded." In the
KJV there is definitely a strong, domineering bias showing
through in this verse by the translators. Then, adding the phrase
about "the law" to back up what Paul was saying could make it
sound like the law, Paul, and churchmen in general were down on
women.
COMMENT:
The KJV is under attack once more, made out to be the murderer of
women. The words "they are commanded" are in italicized words in
the KJV, which the KJV tells you at the beginning are not in the
original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. I would find it much
more of a plot and clandestine plan if the scholars of the KJV
had not italicized these words but put them in matching letters
to the rest of the words that are in the Greek. I see no
deliberate bias here on the part of the KJV translators. Paul
was after all backing up his stand on this matter with "the law."
His authority to be so dogmatic on what he had just stated was
not from himself per se, not his idea at all. He had authority to
state what he did concerning women being silent and not using
their spiritual gifts in the teaching/expounding the word of the
Lord, part of the church service, from "the law."
It is interesting that the Greek word Paul chose to use for the
word "permitted" in the KJV carries the overtone of "command"
within it. See the Greek lexicons.
The Way:
But what we are reading is the result of men translating
these verses while harboring the mental concept toward women that
we saw earlier! Yet, what this verse appears to say (in the
KJV) is not fully consistent with what we know of the love of God
that created these relation- ships.
COMMENT:
Was there some terrible mental hate being exhibited by the KJV
translators towards women when they translated verse 34 of 1 Cor.
14 ? Oh, they added some words but told you by putting them in
italics that they are not technically in the Greek. Yet, we have
seen the word "permitted" in the Greek carries the overtone of
"command." The KJV translators were Greek scholars.
How do the modern Greek/English translators Green and Berry,
translate this verse? "Let the women of you in the churches be
silent, not for it is allowed to them to speak, but let them be
subject, as also the law says......a shame for it is for women in
church to speak" verses 34,35, as rendered into English by Jay P.
Green, Sr.
"Women yours in the assembly let them be silent, for it is not
allowed to them to speak; but to be in subjection, according as
also the law says.......for a shame it is for women in assembly
to speak" verses 34, 35, as rendered by George Berry.
As you see not that much different from the KJV. Are Berry and
Green biased towards women?
If you are a Greek scholar and you give a literal translation
from the Greek into English as close as possible going from one
language to another, then you translate as Green and Berry did,
and as the KJV translators did. All three very close to
translating with the same English words.
Of course you may want to say all three had bias towards women.
And I could say look up these verses in dozens of other
translations and you will find many more scholars of Greek with
bias towards women.
God is love, and He personally took a rib from Adam and made from
it a women. He looked at all He had created and made and said it
was "good." He has no bias towards women, He is perfect
righteousness, and it was He who inspired these words in verses
34 and 35 of 1 Cor. 14.
In His love for men and women He also created basic roles for
them, outside the church service and inside the church, when it
comes together into one place.
The Way:
Let's understand what "the law" means.
"Law" is translated from the Greek word nomos (Strong's
#3551), which is always translated "law" in the KJV. However,
nomos can refer to any number of things: the Ten Commandments,
the Torah, Jewish customs and traditions, or even an agreed-upon
procedure. There is, in reality, no clear-cut law in scripture
authorizing men to subjugate women and treat them like children!
COMMENT:
Now we see a psychological mind move here. If you are not
agreeing with the authors' reasoning and teachings on this
matter, and are still agreeing say with me, then you are not
understanding the Scriptures and still following the clandestine
plot supposedly planted in the KJV by the scholars who translated
for King James - and that plot was to subjugate and treat women
like children. I have read the KJV from the age of six years,
that is nearly 50 years ago now, and I have never once found any
passage in it that was teaching anyone to treat women like
children. So if the KJV scholars were trying to put forth that
instruction in some of their translations of the Hebrew and Greek
into English, they surely did a lousy job of it.
The Way:
Paul may have been thinking of Genesis 3:16: "To the woman
he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with
pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will
be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
There is another translation of this verse, which also needs
to be given consideration. It is found in a footnote of Genesis
3:16 in The New Living Translation: "Then he said to the
woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering.
And though you may desire to control your husband, he will be
your master" [Or, "he will have dominion over you."].
According to this footnote, the thrust of the verse implies
that the wife may have a desire to be in control of her husband,
and thus the family. But, the instruction from our Father is that
the husband would have the dominant role in the God-ordained
family. This is more in line with the instructions from a loving
Father of how the marital relationship should be -- the husband
and father of the family having dominion and lovingly guiding and
leading the family. This lends a much better understanding of
this verse than the master/slave connotation the KJV gives. Why
would a wife "desire to control [her] husband"? The reason is
that she has rejected God's revealed knowledge of proper marital
relations. Was Paul referring to Genesis 3:16 when he said,
"as the law says" in I Corinthians 14:34? Perhaps. However, it's
also quite likely that Paul was actually making a non-specific
reference to the God-ordained set of family dynamics, as if to
say,
"You are well aware of how the family should be run, so please
apply that knowledge in this situation."
COMMENT:
The KJV in Gen.3:16 is not a good translation in some ways, but
the NLT given above is also not good in other ways. First of all
many women in the world do NOT have any "pain" in childbirth,
that this verse has taught many to believe. For generations many
have assumed it was natural and God's intent here to make sure
all women have physical pain when giving birth. Such is not the
case at all, and there are thousands upon thousands of women who
have delivered their babies naturally without any physical pain.
The Hebrew words here do not mean physical pain, but that is a
whole new subject. Granty Dick Reid in his ground-breaking book
"Childbirth Without Fear" goes into all this in great detail.
The last part of this verse the NLT has done a much better job in
translating than the KJV, or should I say understanding the
meaning and intent of the Hebrew. Jay Green gives the
literal translation of this verse this way: "to the woman He
said, greatly I will increase your sorrow and your conception, in
sorrow you shall bear sons, and your husband your desire
shall be, and he shall rule over you." So once more we see that
the KJV scholars did a pretty accurate translation of the Hebrew
into English, if we go with the literal translation and not a
paraphrase or interpretive translation.
Looking at all the Bible, and then understanding or interpreting
this verse, I agree with what the authors say above. For an
in-depth study of this I recommend the book before mentioned
called "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective" by James Hurley.
As some Bible commentators state, when Paul said "the law" here,
he may not have been thinking about any one particular passage of
OT Scripture at all. He may simply have been stating that the
whole general teaching of the OT was that women were never given
the role by God to teach, preach, instruct, expound the word of
the Lord in official congregational gatherings when the church
came together into one place. The general reading of the OT
will clearly show forth that truth and give the reader that
instruction. No woman was ever a part of the official priesthood
of Israel that did all the praying and teaching on the holy
convocations - when the church (Israel was the church in the
wilderness - Acts 7:38) came together into one place.
The Way:
"IN THE CHURCH"?
As we saw above, Paul wrote: "Let your women keep silence in
the churches." What did he mean by this?
Turning to Paul's letter to Titus, we read this: "Likewise,
teach the older women to he reverent in the way they live, not to
be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is
good. Then they can train the younger women to love their
husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy
at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that
no one will malign the word of God" (Titus 2:3-5, NIV).
Paul is instructing Titus to teach the older women to teach
the younger women! Women are to teach! "Yes," some will say,
"but this means at home, not during services." Remember,
though, that the scripture quoted earlier doesn't say that a
woman isn't to "speak during church services," but rather that it
is disgraceful for a woman to laleo in the church. Yet, here we
see that Titus is to instruct older women in the church to
instruct younger women in the church! While the first instance
may be construed to mean that people should not laleo "during
church services," or "during the assembly," this passage in Titus
is clearly talking about women "in the church" -- members of the
Body of Christ -- teaching other women who are also "in the
church"!
COMMENT:
Of course they are going to say Paul was just saying in 1 Cor. 14
women should not "chit-chat" or be "asking questions" to their
husbands or others while some teaching is being presented, as it
causes distraction and hence confusion. But we have more than
just 1 Cor. 14 we also have 1 Tim. 2 on this matter. And as I
have tried to show, the problem was not "chit-chat" from women or
speaking in tongues no one could understand, for Paul had
already talked about that problem and instructed as what to do
about it. If it was confusing chit-chat from the women he then
wanted to correct, he could have easily used language like: "I
hear the women are talking to each other and asking questions to
their husbands while someone is expounding the word of the Lord.
Tell them to stop this talk as it brings confusion to the
assembly."
Now to Titus. Please read carefully chapter two, read chapter one
also if you like. Can you find the word "church" in those
chapters? Can you find the words "when you come together into
one place"? Can you find the words "when the church comes
together"? No! Such words and phrases are just not there. Paul
is instructing Titus about certain things that he should instruct
others to do or not to do. He was to instruct the older men. He
was to instruct the younger men. He was to instruct servants. And
he was to instruct the older women. Yes, he was to tell the
older women they should instruct the younger women in certain
areas of their living. How would Titus do this instruction? Well
it certainly could be in sermons, but it certainly could also be
in private conversations he would have with the older and younger
women, anywhere - after services as they fellowshipped on the
Sabbath, in their homes as he visited them during the week, and
at other convenient times.
There is nothing in Titus to tell us when the older women should
teach the younger women these things mentioned. 1 Cor. 14 and 1
Tim. 2 would rule out that it would be during official church
services of teaching and expounding the word of the Lord, where
the whole church has come together with men present. And that is
what we need to understand, it is when men are present and it is
an official whole church coming together into one place to be
instructed and edified in the expounding of the word of the Lord,
that women are to remain silent in the teaching and expounding of
the word section of the service. And if they have any questions
about what is taught they are to ask their husbands at home.
The older women would not then be teaching the younger women
during this part of the service. Now if it was a woman's
"retreat" week-end and only women were there (as many churches do
hold such week-ends - they also have men only retreat week-ends)
then women would teach women. And older women could teach
younger women at such retreats. The Lord gives no instructions
in His word that prohibits women only retreats for one or more
days. Women would then teach women at these times.
The most natural times for older women to teach the younger women
what Paul wanted them to teach, is of course during more natural
times - everyday times - everyday living as the older and younger
women of the church would meet and fellowship during the week,
outside of the 2 hours or so a week that the church comes
together into one place.
Remember the phrase "church coming together" is not found in
Titus chapter two.
The Way:
Here is a classic example of a phrase that may have more
than one meaning. The only way to really understand what is meant
by "in the church" (Greek: en ekklesia) is to look at the
context and the sentence structure, and note other occurrences of
the phrase.
COMMENT:
I agree, but remember, the phrase "in the church" is not found in
Titus chapter two.
The Way:
Notice these other examples of "en ekklesia":
Acts 7:38: "He (Moses) was in the assembly in the desert,
with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our
fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us."
I Corinthians 6:4: "There-fore, if you have disputes about
such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the
church!"
1 Corinthians 11:18: "In the first place, I hear that when
you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and
to some extent I believe it."
1 Corinthians 12:28: "And in the church God has appointed
first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those
able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and
those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
I Corinthians 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak
five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand
words in a tongue."
I Corinthians 14:28: "If there is no interpreter, the
speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and
God."
1 Corinthians 14:35: "If they want to enquire about
something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Ephesians 3:21: "to him (God) be glory in the church and in
Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!
Amen."
Colossians 4:16: "After this letter has been read to you,
see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that
you in turn read the letter from Leodicea."
As you can see, it's sometimes clear what is meant by this
phrase, but at other times you can't really be sure if it's
referring to the church people or the church gathering -- or
both!
COMMENT:
I agree. It is often the CONTEXT that must tell us how a word is
being used and not the mere "lexicon" meaning. But with that
said, I submit the context of 1 Cor. 14 tells us plainly how Paul
was using the phrase "in the church" or "when you come together
into one place." In fact the last phrase is the interpretation
of how Paul was viewing "in the church" in his discord correction
and instruction he was given them from verse 17 of chapter 11 to
the end of chapter 14. Certainly in chapter 12 and 13 there is a
broader aspect to include the whole body of believers in Christ
everywhere, but there can be no mistaking the much narrower
aspect of the local Corinthian assembly when they came together
into one place, when we read Paul's instructions and corrections
in chapter 11:17-34 and chapter 14. Chapter 11:17-34 is dealing
with that local congregation in the city of Corinth meeting to
observe the memorial of the death of Christ, on one particular
evening of the year at one particular location, as they came
together into one place (verse 20). Chapter 14 likewise. Various
wordings like that of verse 23, 24, 26-31, make it obvious
that Paul was talking about the things that were going on in
their individual church assembly at Corinth, when they met as a
whole church, when they came into one place.
.......................................................... TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment