Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Why should the question of the equality of women ever arise? Be-cause some have misinterpreted the fact that the Scriptures give men and women different roles to mean that women are inferior. Men are in authority and women are in subjection. Some of the people who do this are men and may have wrong motives in wanting to “keep women inferior.” And some are women who are feminists who want to discredit the Bible and so have misrepresented it.

It needs to be established here at the first that we are talking about equality in the sight of God. That is really all that matters.

Different Roles

Men and women are different biologically, emotionally, physically, and sexually. Regardless of all these differences, they are equal in God’s sight. God gave them roles and responsibilities best suited to their natures.

Man’s Role: It was to the man that God gave responsibilities that involve the most physical strength. He was to dress and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). His living would come by the sweat of his face” (Gen. 3:17-19). He is to be the provider (1 Tim.5:8).

Woman’s Role: Her responsibilities differ markedly from the man’s. Hers is the role of childbearing and a keeper at home (Gen. 3:16; Tit. 2:5).

How can they be on a competitive basis since they have different roles? They could only truly complete if their roles were identical. The reason we never see a baseball team compete with a football team is because they have totally different roles and rules to go by. It is only when the roles of men and women are blurred that competition enters the picture and problems develop.

Jesus And Equality

If God had thought women were inferior to men it is strange that five women are named in the genealogy of Jesus  a very prominent and valuable document. This is highly “unusual from a genealogical point of view” since most ancestries were traced through the man (A.B. Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament I:62). There were a number of times when Jesus praised women or did favors for them. 1. Healed the son of the widow of Nain (Lk. 7); 2. Saved the life of the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8); 3. Praised the widow who gave two mites (Lk. 21); 4. Healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8); 5. Healed Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5); 6. Healed the woman with an issue of blood (Mk. 5); 7. Honored his mother by making provisions for her (Jn. 19).

Jesus never belittled womanhood or slighted women in any way. There is nothing one can point to in his life that would indicate he thought they were unequal to men. One of the greatest favors he did for women was his teaching on divorce. In a society where women were treated as property, Jesus equalized the situation. In the ancient world a man could divorce his wife for the flimsiest excuse. “But if a woman repudiate her husband, she shall be drowned in the river” (Hastings Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels II:834). Women were always the victims in divorce but Jesus prohibited all divorce (except for fornication). His law applied continued from cover The Equality of Women . . . equally to women (Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:12). Even the infidel, Edward Gibbon, author of the famous work on The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians” (III:683).

Inspiration pays its highest tribute by recording that it was women who were last at the cross and first at the tomb. While all others forsook him in his darkest hour, apparently only these women were guiltless (Matt. 27:55,61; Matt. 28:1).

Paul And Equality

Some have thought that since Paul was celibate and placed a restriction on women that he did not believe in the equality of women. However, Paul was not against women and he argued for his right to marry (1 Cor. 9:5). He said marriage was honorable (Heb. 13:4). He desired that younger women marry (1 Tim. 5:14). At the close of a number of his letters he salutes and honors many women, women we would never have known had not Paul so esteemed them. It was Paul who advocated equality by telling us that in Christ “there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). There is no distinction in dignity, honor or blessings. And he forever etched in our minds that “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

Paul’s teaching on the marriage relationship shows Inspiration’s high regard for women. A husband is to love his wife “as his own body” (Eph. 5:28); “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25); he is to “nourish” and “cherish” her (Eph. 5:29). He is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her (Eph. 5:31).

Peter And Equality

It was Peter who said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34,35). He also said the husband is to “honor the woman” and that husbands and wives are “joint-heirs of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7).What could be more equal than that?

Headship And Equality

Since it is established over and over in both testaments that “God is no respecter of persons,” one is incorrect to think that God’s order of headship is somehow contrary to equality.

1. God has placed civil rulers over their citizens (Rom.) 3:10, but that doesn’t mean God loves rulers more than he does citizens for God is no respecter of persons.

2. God has placed parents in authority over their children (Eph.6: I), but that doesn’t mean he loves fathers and mothers more than he does their boys and girls, for he is no respecter of persons.

3. God has given elders oversight of the flock (I Pet. 5:2 Heb. 13:7,17), but that doesn’t mean he loves elders more than he loves deacons or any of the other members, for God is no respecter of persons.

4. God has made the husband the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23). He has said a woman is not “to teach or usurp authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). But this does not mean he loves men more than he does women, for God is no respecter of persons! Headship has nothing to do with God’s love.

Conclusion

While women must accept the role God has given them it in no way means they are second class Christians or inferior in God’s sight. Both men and women need to accept this. And while some women have viewed Jesus and Paul as their worst enemies, they are actually their best friends. The teaching of Jesus and Paul (both of which are from God) elevates women to a position high above the extremists of their day and our day and any attempt to try to change that degrades women.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 1
February 2, 1995

By: David Posey

Timothy 2:9-15 is the pivotal passage in the New Testament on the woman’s role in the church. Nearly every interpreter agrees that it restricts the woman’s role in some way. Unless there is some reason why this passage should not be applied by the 20th century church, then every other passage on the role of women must be reconciled to this one.

Before turning to an examination of the passage, particularly verses 11-12, I want to suggest first that regardless of our conclusions about this passage any real solution to the turmoil over this issue will turn on the willingness of women to accept their God-given role in the church. Those women who clamor for “place” and seek “the best seats” violate not only the spirit of several passages that speak specifically to the demeanor of women, but also many others that forbid every disciple, whether male or female, from striving for “place” in the kingdom.

So even if someone could persuade us that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not prohibit a woman from taking a public part in the local church today, we must still face the question: “what kind of woman pleases God?” The teaching in passages like I Peter 3:1-6 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 could not be more lucid: women glorify God by cultivating a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4) and “by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness” (1 Tim. 2:10), not in the public arena, as some men are commanded to do. If a woman insists that these stipulations belittle her then she has problems that will not be solved by an exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

What does I Timothy 2:11-12 say to honest hearts about the role of women? The use of the plural forms in 2:1 (entreaties, prayers, petitionss) and 2:8 (men) suggests that Paul is concerned particularly with the public assemblies in this passage, though not necessarily “at the building.” The instructions here would apply to any mixed gathering of God’s people.

Paul tells Timothy that he wants the men to pray in these gatherings, lifting up “holy hands” (2:8). Verse 9 (lit., “likewise women”) connects Paul’s next statement with the preceding instructions. Men are to conduct themselves in a certain way when they pray (“without wrath and dissension”); likewise, women are to conduct themselves properly. A woman is to fill her role in the church in a different way than a man. Men are charged to take the public part; that is appropriate for them (but see the caution in James 3:1). Women, too, are to do those things that are “appropriate” (NIV) for a woman who professes godliness (that is, one who is seeking to glorify God in her life).

What is “appropriate”? Verses 11-12 restrict the public role of women in some way. What is Paul restricting? In sum, he says “women are to learn quietly and in entire submissiveness  I do not permit a woman to take an active role of leadership in the public gathering of God’s people.” Note that there is no restriction in the passage to Sunday morning “worship services.” Whatever Paul is forbidding applies to all instances of “gatherings,” including a Bible class in a home.

The Greek words Paul uses here are significant. The word “quietly” (NASB) is from hesuchia, translated “in quiet fashion” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12. Paul is commanding a certain demeanor from women, an attitude of heart that produces quiet subjection, a far cry from clamoring for a public role. “Subjection” is from hupotasso and means the voluntary decision to obey another. In Romans 13:1, Paul uses the same word to describe our obligation to the government.

In v. 12, Paul amplifies, and perhaps modifies, his statement in v. 11. He says that he does not permit a woman “to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Since women are commanded to teach on occasion (e.g., Titus 3:3-5), we know Paul is not ruling out all teaching for women. The key phrase is “over a man.” A woman cannot teach or hold a position of authority in the local church that would place her in a superior position to a man. This is the only instance in the New Testament of the Greek word authenteo, rendered “exercise authority” (NASB). Feminist protests notwithstanding, the meaning of the word is settled: it means to “assert the self ” or to “dominate.” Such dominance is most obvious where a woman takes a formal teaching role in the church. But “teaching over a man” can also take place from the pew, or at a kitchen table, or whenever a woman attempts to “assert herself ” and dominate a man in a Bible discussion.

In summary, Paul commends a quiet attitude on the part of women, commands subjection of them to their male counterparts and condemns any teaching or exercise of authority by them that would be “over a man.”

This message is so clear that attempts to dull’ the application of it takes some real ingenuity. Of course, some argue that “Paul was a chauvinist,” or that the New Testament epistles are just “good advice,” or make sundry other arguments that deny the veracity of the Bible. Some claim that Paul was dealing with a cultural problem in Ephesus and thus the application of the prohibition is limited to Paul’s time. Feminist Catherine Clark Kroeger, for example, argues that Paul is saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach error,” shifting the emphasis from woman to error. The particular error Paul had in mind was probably Gnosticism, she argues.’ Besides the fact is that Gnosticism was not well-attested before the second century A.D. Furthermore, Paul says nothing at all about the content of teaching here. It would have been easy enough for him to use the word “error” if that is what he wanted to say. On “exercise authority” (authenteo) she concludes that it represents “a tenet propounded by the heretical teachers.” But earlier in her article, she concludes that authenteo could mean “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” While that definition is a stretch, she still recognized that authenteo is a verb. But later, she makes authenteo a noun, “tenet,” apparently because that serves her purpose better. Instead of sound exegesis she is forcing Scripture to accommodate her particular point of view.

Some argue that a local church eldership, or a Bible class teacher, can, in effect, nullify Paul’s limitation by “delegating” authority to a woman. But they do not have that authority to give. The word authenteo means to “dominate,” not “authority” (exousia). The issue is not that a woman is taking away a male teacher’s authority, but that she is stepping out of her God-given role in seeking to teach over a man. God has not given elders the authority to set aside God’s instructions in any matter he has spoken, including this one.

I’ll conclude by stressing that our interpretation of this passage is not informed by a desire to “keep women in their place.” Nor do we wish to resurrect the extreme views of the past. Aquinas said that woman is “defective and misbegotten” and Tertullian claimed that women are the “devil’s gateway.” But nothing in Scripture warrants such a dismal view of women. On the contrary, women have often played a major (though non-public) role in the growth of church. Pheobe, Priscilla, Eudodia and Syntyche, Lydia and others helped spread the gospel in a quiet, God-glorifying way, “by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.”

Woman have a different role than men, but nothing in Scripture suggests that women are second-class citizens of the kingdom. And Paul holds no brief for men who regard them as such  they can expect no more help from Paul than the most wide-eyed liberal feminist who is demanding her place in the church.

Footnotes

‘Catherine Clark Kroeger, “1 Timothy 2:12, `A Classicist’s View,”‘ Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson, editor,pp.225ff.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 8-9
February 2, 1995

By Gary Henry

Timothy, whose mother and grandmother taught him well, is not the only Christian whose life has been shaped by godly women. There is likely not a person who is strong in the Lord and effective in his work who does not owe profound gratitude to several women for the role they have played in his or her spiritual development. It would be hard to overestimate the contribution that women make to the local congregation. Since their special endowments suit them for important work, women are not merely useful to the Lord’s work, they are absolutely critical.

Paul’s remarks about Phoebe are instructive. He wrote to the church in Rome: “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also” (Rom. 16:1,2). He does not specify what kind of service Phoebe was rendering, but Paul’s language clearly shows that this sister was doing things in the Lord’s work that amounted to far more than a token contribution. She is described as a “servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Paul said that she had been “a helper of many and of myself also.” Her work was important enough that Paul instructed the church in Rome to assist her in whatever way she had need while she was there. This passage alone is enough to teach us that there is ample scope within the Lord’s work for women to serve in deeply significant ways.

Benevolence. Seeing to the needs of those who are sick, those who are impoverished, etc. is not just work for women. The Lord’s people, men no less than women, need to do more than we sometimes do to help meet physical needs among the saints (Jas. 2:14-16; 1 Jn. 3:17,18). There can be no question, however, that sisters in the Lord are capable of bringing to this important work a grace and a beauty that men are normally not capable of. Certainly, the women who waited upon the physical needs of the Lord himself (Matt. 27:55; Lk. 8:3) added a touch of grace that his male disciples were hardly able to supply. Being a disciple of the Lord means putting ourselves on the line for those who need us (Jn. 13:12-17), and the unique at-tributes of femininity make the work of benevolence far more heartening than it would be without them.

Edification. Numerous passages speak of our need, whether men or women, to encourage and strengthen our fellow saints. The specifics will vary depending on whether it is a man or a woman doing the edifying, but I believe instructions like the following have important implications for the spiritual work of women as well as men: “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2); “comfort each other and edify one another” (1 Thess. 5:11); “comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak” (1 Thess. 5:14).

This writer can personally testify to the powerful and unique ability of sisters in the Lord to encourage. Time and again in my life I have been the beneficiary of words and actions of edification that have come from women among the Lord’s people. I do not doubt that, as a gospel preacher, my survival spiritually and my continuation as a preacher is largely the result of strength imparted to me by sisters who knew exactly what to say and how to say it. In the “hospital for souls” that is the local congregation, we desperately need what women can do to bind up wounds and lift spirits. Especially in a day when personal crises, difficulties in relationships, emotional problems, and family breakdowns are so widespread, the gift of encouragement that God has made women able to give is essential.

There is a special need for women to see themselves as teachers of other women and of young people. We have already mentioned the impact on Timothy’s life of his mother’s and his grandmother’s teaching. The Scriptures also indicate that older women are to teach younger women: “the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good thingsthat they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). As the family unit in society continues to deteriorate and the teaching network of the extended family is lost, I believe there will be all the more need for spiritually mature women in congregations to assume the role of edifiers and teachers of the wisdom that used to be passed down by parents and grandparents. Without this womanly wisdom about the basic business of living life, our congregational work is seriously hindered.

Evangelism. Not only are women capable of being edifiers, it is possible for them to play an important role in evangelism, the work of teaching those who have not yet obeyed the gospel. The realm of personal evangelism contains many opportunities for women to plant the seed of the gospel in the hearts of those who are lost. We are told that both Aquila and Priscilla were involved in teaching Apollos the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26). In more than one place, Paul speaks of women who were fellow workers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3,6,12; etc.). Of Euodia and Syntyche, he said, “Help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3).

The scriptural limitations on the teaching work of women (1 Tim. 2:12; etc.) should never be thought of as barring women from any participation in the work of rescuing lost souls. Indeed, there are times when individuals can be won to the Lord by the efforts of a woman when it is not likely they could be won any other way. Women who have both a deep love for the Lord and a skilled understanding of the Scriptures are powerful forces in the work of evangelism. We need more women who will accept the challenge of doing all they can do, uniquely as women, to win the world to Christ. The imperative of the Great Commission applies not just to men, but to all the saints of God.

To conclude, there is much that women can do to invest themselves in the work of the local church. The very act of praying for the work is no small thing. Beyond that, there is a wide range of specific activities by which women, without at all stepping beyond scriptural boundaries, may contribute to the benevolence, edification, and evangelism that their fellow Christians are engaged in. Every single member of the body has the duty to “adorn the doctrine of God” (Tit. 2:10). It is not too much to say, considering the high gifts granted by God to women, that the gospel is never adorned any more beautifully than when women of the Lord love and work and serve faithfully in his work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 10-11
February 2, 1995

By Weldon E. Warnock

Quoting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we read: “Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

This passage has been greatly misunderstood. Some have interpreted it to mean that women may not teach women or children in our Bible classes, nor even ask a question or make a comment in a mixed class where a man is the teacher. A few have gone so far as to advocate that women may not even sing in the public assembly where men are present. Such views are radical and extreme and exhibit a warped and an erroneous concept of the verses being discussed.

A Special Meeting

The assembly in 1 Corinthians 14 is special in function and temporary in nature. The context shows explicitly that it was in assembly for the exercise of spiritual gifts. We read, “If any man speaks in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret” (v. 27). We have nothing like this today.

In verse 29 Paul further states, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” We cannot duplicate this. Hence, in this setting he instructs the women not to speak but to be in silence, and not to disturb those speaking by divine revelation.

Except for the principle, “but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (a principle stated in the Old Testament and reaffirmed in the New Testament), these circumstances have no bearing on our assemblies today. We have no tongue-speakers or prophets. If we apply it to the church presently, how do we determine what two or three men take the place of tongue-speakers and what two or three take the place of prophets. These women were commanded not to interrupt when men spoke in tongues or prophets prophesied.

An “If” Meeting

That this was a special meeting of the church is indicated in verses 23 and 26. In verse 23 Paul uses a conditional particle “if ” that shows uncertainty as to when the assembly will take place. Thayer states the word “if ” (Gr., ean) means, “A conditional particle which makes reference to time and experience, introducing something future, but not determining, before the event whether it is certainly to take place” (Greek-English Lexicon 162).

In verse 26 Paul says, “… when you come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.” Thayer says of “when” (Gr., hotan), “A particle of time, at the time that, whenever, used of things which one assumes will re-ally occur, but the time of whose occurrence, he does not definitely fix, often also of things which one assumes can occur, but whether they really will or not he does not know; hence like our in case that” (458).

Contrast the “if ” meeting with the assemblies in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. There is no indefinite article (ean) or adverb (hotan) in these assemblies. They were not “if “meetings, but definite regular meetings. Let us not be guilty of applying the rules for special and exceptional assemblies as the norm for all assemblies.

What women may do in the regularly scheduled assemblies, such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 16:2 is not restricted, regulated, or regimented by the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, except the principle that she is to be “under obedience” or as stated in 1 Timothy 2: 12, “not to usurp (exercise) authority over the man.” Women are to sing in our regular assemblies. Paul wrote, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “… teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16). Notice that Paul says when we sing we speak and that we teach. However, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the women may not speak, but are to be silent. Therefore, it is apparent that the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34 are not applicable to the other regular assemblies. Paul declares that the women are to keep silence.

To Keep Silence

The word “silence” in this text means to be quiet; not to speak. The Greek word is sigao, which, according to Thayer means, “to keep silence, hold one’s peace” (574). Silence is used in contrast to speaking or addressing the assembly. Furthermore, this also precludes her from interrupting the inspired revelations by asking questions.

The word “speaking” in verse 34 is from the Greek word laleo that is found several times in this chapter (cf. vv. 2,3,6,9,11,13,18,19,21,23,27,29,39). In the immediate context Paul writes in verse 27, “If any man speak in an unknown tongue” and in verse 29, “Let the prophets speak two or three.” Here, the men are speaking, that is, addressing the special assembly. They were told also to be silent under the circumstances as prescribed in verses 28 and 30. In this kind of meeting the women were not to speak, but to remain silent. Paul goes even further and states that if she would learn any additional thing than what she learned by listening to the inspired revelations, let her ask her husband at home.

Identifying the Women

The question is: Who were these women? There are various schools of thought. 1. They were the prophetesses who endeavored to exercise their spiritual gifts in the special public assemblies. 2. They were the women in general in the churches. 3. They were the wives of the prophets.

In regard to number one it seems to me that if Paul had meant prophetesses he would have so stated, rather than using the word women. When he spoke of men prophesying, he designated them as such (v. 29). It would logically follow, therefore, that the women should be so identified. James MacKnight comments, “The prohibition standing in this connection implies that the Corinthian women were not to pray and prophesy in the church as teachers, on pretense of being inspired and unable to restrain the emotions of the Spirit” (Apostolical Epistles 196). Though this position is possible, as advocated by MacKnight, it lacks compelling evidence in my estimation.

In reference to number two, taken at face value, this position has a great amount of merit. This is what the text says: “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” The difficulty with this view is why would their husbands know more than they do? What about the women who had no husbands or whose husbands were not Christians? The solution may be that Paul is focusing on those who had husbands who were Christians. The women could discuss with them things of personal religious interests outside of the special assemblies.

As stated in number three, perhaps he was referring to the views of the prophets who were interrupting the services. The same Greek word for women is also used for wives. We know that these women had husbands, but apparently the husbands could answer the questions of their wives. Hence, the husbands could well have been the prophets  spiritually endowed men to reveal the will of God. We cannot know for certain which of these views is correct, because the situation at Corinth is not totally reconstructed. I am inclined to agree with the latter view. Regardless, one thing is sure, none of the women was to speak or to ask questions in this type of meeting, but rather to be silence because of the principle  “to be under obedience as also saith the law.” To have done otherwise would have been shameful and disgraceful.

Let us not be more restrictive and limiting than what the Bible enjoins. Women are free in the church to teach ladies and children, and she may ask questions, make comments and seek information in a mixed class with a male teacher. She may be a servant of the church like Phoebe (Rom. 16: I ), or a helper like those who assisted Paul in the gospel (Phil. 4:3), or those who are enrolled in the church, perhaps, for special functions (1 Tim. 5:9-10). Women may do anything in the church that does not violate the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. However, this divine principle does not allow women to be pastors, preachers, song leaders, teachers of a mixed class of men and women or lead public prayer.

Those who have a problem with these regulations will have to take it up with the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 6-7
February 2, 1995