by Rev. Thomas Scarborough.

CONTENTS

1. Foreword

2. Introduction

3. The Creation

4. The Example of the Old Testament

5. The Example of the New Testament

6. The Day of Pentecost

7. A Brief Reference to Church History

8. Submission of Wives: Eph. 5-6 & Col. 3-4

9. The Case of Sarah: 1 Pet. 3

10. Removing Headdresses: 1 Cor. 11

11. Women to Remain Silent: 1 Cor. 14

12. Teaching in the Church: 1 Tim. 2

13. Passages Regarding Elders: 1 Tim. 3 & Tit. 1

14. The Pastorate

15. Hierarchical and Egalitarian in Practice

16. Wider Perspective and Conclusion

17. Bibliography

1. FOREWORD

Recently I rediscovered a text which I first prepared seventeen years ago, in 1991, for a seminar on “The Role of Women in the Church”. It is a Biblical view, in the sense that the Bible is its touchstone. The seminar was organised by the evangelical Congregational Churches of Southern Africa, and followed shortly on the heels of similar seminars by the Baptist Union of Southern Africa. Several references are made to the Baptist seminars in this document. In 1998, I was invited to present this document again to the annual conference of the evangelical Congregational Churches of Australia, and this provided the opportunity to incorporate various suggestions I had received since 1991.

Seventeen years is of course a long time. Today I would surely write this document differently. However, whatever its flaws may be today, I believe that it represents, on the whole, a good, broad overview of the Biblical egalitarian view of women in the Church. Rather than revising the text — a task for which I might never find the time — I considered that, having happened to have rediscovered it, I would release it “as is” as a basis for reflection and discussion. Unless otherwise stated, the New International Version of the Bible has been quoted throughout.

Rev. Thomas Scarborough, Cape Town, 3 September 2008.

2. INTRODUCTION

There are at least two distinct views on women in the Church today. Both of these views are found among EVANGELICAL Christians, and both are based on the teaching of the SCRIPTURES.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recently I read a very neat and to the point summary of these two views. It was speaking specifically of MARRIAGE — but these comments could apply in principle to the entire question of women in the Church:

“There are at least two divergent ‘evangelical’ perspectives on Christian marriage.”

“The traditional perspective is the ‘hierarchical’ model in which the authority of the husband is stressed (…) Writers and speakers who hold to the hierarchical model emphasise the submissive ‘helpmeet’ role of the wife and the leadership responsibility of the husband.”

“(On the other hand), there is growing support for another view of Christian marriage — the ‘egalitarian’ model, in which husband and wife have equally important responsibilities under God and work together in mutual submission to carry them out.”

“Writers and speakers who support this view feel that Christians have been conformed to the world in their following of the hierarchical model.”

(Brestin, S. & D. 1976. BUILDING YOUR HOUSE ON THE LORD. Illinois : Harold Shaw Publishers).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today I shall be representing the SECOND view, namely the EGALITARIAN view.

The word EGALITARIAN comes from the French word, EGALITE — which means EQUALITY. It holds that there is a basic EQUALITY between men and women in the Christian Church.

Of course, the New Testament also speaks plainly about the SUBMISSION of women.

The egalitarian view ACCEPTS that — and so in certain ways the egalitarian view is not completely egalitarian! We shall come to that later.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before I continue, there is an important point I would like to establish concerning my whole approach to this subject.

I base the argument that I am putting forward today wholly on the SCRIPTURES. It is not cultural, and it is not feminist. Neither is it CONTEXTUAL in the cultural sense.

The only context that I am going to be looking at today is the context which the SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES provide.

Dr. Bryan Williams says,

“Just as FEELINGS are not to be our guide to truth, nor is CULTURE. The Church has too often been influenced by cultural patterns, rather than influencing THEM. (…) We have to face the issue SQUARELY — is our AUTHORITY SCRIPTURE or INCLINATION? The BIBLE or CULTURE?”

(Williams, Dr. B.A. 1989. THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

My authority today is SCRIPTURE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is in fact in the treatment of SCRIPTURE that the egalitarian and hierarchical views DIFFER.

BOTH views have a HIGH view of Scripture.

I don’t wish to suggest that the HIERARCHICAL view does not take Scripture seriously.

Nevertheless, the hierarchical view does take a different broad APPROACH to SCRIPTURE.

In general, the EGALITARIAN view looks at whole passages and whole chapters of the Bible. The HIERARCHICAL view tends to lift specific verses OUT of their Biblical context, and examine them in relative isolation.

The Rev. Brian Harris once touched on this point when speaking on the ORDINATION OF WOMEN — which is one small part of my subject today:

“Those who favour the ordination of women usually do so on the basis of what they see to be themes and broader affirmations and trends in the Bible. Those who oppose it do so on the basis of a few specific verses.”

(Harris, Rev. B. 1989. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

Therefore, the HIERARCHICAL view tends to zoom in on specific VERSES, while the egalitarian view tends to look at BROADER PASSAGES. I have said that this is a TENDENCY, and I am sure you will discern it yourself in the different views on this subject.

This is one of the most serious weaknesses of the hierarchical view.

3. THE CREATION

A logical place for me to begin today is the CREATION.

We need to look at the creation, because IN the creation account we see in SEMINAL form many of the Bible’s basic doctrines concerning man.

In Genesis 1:27 we read that God created both man and woman in His own image:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Therefore, as regards the image of God in man, man and woman are equal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then we notice also — very importantly — that God gave man and woman JOINTLY the command to rule over creation.

God said, in Genesis 1:26,

“Let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground…”

Here we find God’s ORIGINAL CREATION ORDER. Eve ruled WITH Adam over the lower creation — and together they lived in MUTUAL submission to Almighty God. We find no indication in Scripture that Adam RULED over Eve after the creation.

Some supporters of the hierarchical view say that Adam named the ANIMALS — Adam also named the WOMAN. THEREFORE both the animals AND the woman fell under the rule of ADAM.

Rev. M. Holdt says,

“Man was given dominion when he was created. This was demonstrated in the delegated authority given to him to name the animals. He stood therefore at the head of creation, and exercised authority over both the woman and the animal world.”

(Holdt, M. 1989. THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

Even so, to say that Adam RULED over Eve — BECAUSE he named her — is nothing more than speculation. We saw in Genesis 1:26 that both the woman AND the man ruled TOGETHER over the lower creation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then, in Genesis 3, there is the tragedy of the FALL of man. The man and the woman together fell into SIN, and through their sin they brought corruption upon the whole human race.

Then we read in Genesis 3:16, “(The Lord God) said to the woman, ‘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.'”

I would like us to notice some very important points concerning this verse.

In the first place, it was AFTER THE FALL that the Lord God introduced the rule of man over the woman.

Secondly, God introduced the RULE of the man over his wife as a part of His PUNISHMENT for sin. He introduces this measure only once Eve has become a member of the unsaved world outside of Christ.

Rev. A. Gilfillan puts it this way:

“Prior to the Fall woman and man seem to walk in equal dignity and responsibility. Subordination comes into the picture as a painful, depriving state of affairs only after sin has entered.”

(Gilfillan, Rev. A.S. 1989. THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The EGALITARIAN view holds — THEREFORE — that SALVATION through Jesus Christ REVERSES the order of the unsaved world.

The Rev. Brian Harris comments:

“What does our redemption mean if the effects of the fall are not done away with in a redeemed community…?”

(Harris, Rev. B. 1989. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars).

In this regard, we read in Galatians 3:28,

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

It is POSSIBLE to hold that this verse refers ONLY to the equality of God’s grace in salvation. But it does seem likely that this verse refers to our PRACTICAL status as fellow-believers.

Samuel J. Mikolasky, Professor of Theology at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, comments on this verse as follows:

“In this new life all ethnic, caste and other old distinctions are destroyed, in favour of complete equality within union with Christ.”

(THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED. Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).

Professor Mikolasky speaks here not only of the distinction between the redeemed and the unredeemed, but between “old distinctions” of the natural man.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHILE on the subject of the CREATION, I should perhaps deal with the word “helpmeet,” or “helper,” which we find in Genesis 2:18. Many Christians interpret this word as indicating a subordinate position for the woman.

In Genesis 2:18, the Lord God said,

“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a HELPER suitable for him.”

In the original Hebrew, that word is a COMPOSITE of TWO words: EZER K’NEG’DO.

Steve and Dee Brestin expound as follows on the meaning of these two words. They say,

“The word translated ‘helpmeet’ in Genesis 2:18 is a combination of two Hebrew words. “Ezer” is translated “help” but shouldn’t be taken to mean inferiority for it is sometimes used in reference to God. ‘Neged’ means ‘one corresponding to’.”

(Brestin, S. & D. 1976. BUILDING YOUR HOUSE ON THE LORD. Illinois : Harold Shaw Publishers).

And the word “corresponding to” may also mean “to be equal to,” “to be similar to,” or “to be congruous with.”

The word “helpmeet” is therefore not a word that has to signify a subordinate position.

4. THE EXAMPLE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Many people believe that the Old Testament essentially regarded women as INFERIOR.

Indeed, we DO find several examples of inequality. It was, after all, a time when the full light of God’s revelation in Christ had not yet reached God’s people.

However, this was undoubtedly a dark and barbaric age in the world — and with this in mind, we find some startling examples of gender EQUALITY in the Old Testament.

In the book of JUDGES (4:4) we read concerning DEBORAH:

“Deborah, a prophetess (…) was LEADING Israel at that time.”

In Kings and Chronicles, we read how King Josiah sent a delegation to the prophetess HULDAH, and how through her word the Lord initiated a spiritual revival in Israel. (2 Kings 22:14).

There was MIRIAM, the prophetess, the sister of Moses (Exodus 15:20). She played a prominent role in the shaping of her nation. (Sadly, both she and Aaron were later overcome by the sin of PRIDE, and God smote Miriam with leprosy).

And then there were Ruth and Esther, each of whom served as God’s instrument in the salvation of the Jews (see the books of Ruth and Esther).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the Old Testament, women also enjoyed a large measure of equality before the LAW.

The Law commanded both man and woman to rest on the Sabbath day. (Exodus 20:10).

Both man and woman could take the special Nazarite vow. (Numbers 6:2).

The Law frequently commanded God’s people, without reference to gender, to offer the same sacrifices, both man and woman (e.g. Exodus 20:22-24). And when a woman offered a sacrifice at the birth of a child, she offered the same sacrifice both for a boy and for a girl. (Leviticus 12:6).

The Law demanded the same respect for a mother as for a father. (Leviticus 19:3). It gave joint responsibility to the mother AND the father in disciplining the children. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). We also find examples of women NAMING their children (eg. 1 Samuel 4:21), and apparently having the authority to decide their future (e.g. 1 Samuel 1:28).

Both man and woman could inherit and own land (e.g. Joshua 17:6). And a married woman appears to have been able to select and buy property at her own discretion (Proverbs 31:11,16).

Both man and woman could conduct business (Proverbs 31:34). And a woman could apparently at her own discretion give away the fruit of her husband’s labours. (Proverbs 31:20).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, in the OLD TESTAMENT there is no explicit command that GENTILES should not become members of the Jewish faith. There is also no explicit command that only MEN should join the Levitical priesthood. Nowhere in the Old Testament are women expressly excluded from the Levitical priesthood.

Some theologians interpret this as a SHADOW of things to come.

The New Testament in fact refers to ALL Christian believers as a PRIESTHOOD — “a kingdom and priests to serve the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 1:6, 5:10).

5. THE EXAMPLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The NEW Testament elevated a woman’s honour and status still further.

What is particularly striking is the relationship of our LORD to women.

He spoke to women in public, which was not viewed as being acceptable in His day. The Bible tells us that the disciples were “surprised” to find Him doing so (John 4:27).

Jesus stayed in women’s homes, He relied upon their hospitality, and He was both followed and FINANCED by women disciples (Luke 8:1-3).

It was to a WOMAN that Jesus first entrusted the explicit teaching that He was the Christ. It was a WOMAN whom He chose to PUBLISH this news, making her the first effective evangelist in the Christian era. It was to a WOMAN that Christ first appeared after His resurrection from the dead, and it was to a WOMAN that He said, “Go, and tell My brothers.” (Luke 24:11-18).

Jesus spoke of a woman’s rights in the question of divorce (Mark 10:11-12). This also was not viewed as being acceptable in His day.

To Mary and Martha He made it clear that there may be more important interests for women than their daily household chores, and affirmed that they were capable of judging and appreciating great spiritual truths. (Luke 10:38-42).

Jesus also spoke on one occasion of GOD as the WOMAN seeking the lost coin (Luke 15:9). He spoke also of HIMSELF as a MOTHER HEN who would gather her chicks under her wing (Matthew 23:37).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After PENTECOST, we find many more examples of women’s honoured status in the Christian Church.

Women are described as heirs WITH their husbands of the gracious gift of life (1 Peter 3:7).

The apostle Paul described certain women as “fellow workers” with the Apostles (Philippians 4:3). A transliteration of the Greek text states that “they struggled with me with both Clement any my remaining fellow-workers”.

In Acts 21:9 we read of the four daughters of PHILIP who PROPHESIED. This generally refers to the proclamation of the Word of God in public. Of course, we do not know HOW, WHERE, or TO WHOM they prophesied. At any rate, it may be significant that the New Testament mentions no limits to their ministry.

The Scriptures suggest that women may have taken part in Church DISCIPLINE (1 Corinthians 5:4).

Women involved themselves in the organisation of HOUSE CHURCHES (Acts 16:40, Romans 16:3-5). Priscilla, together with her husband Aquila, explained the way of God to Apollos. (Acts 18:24-26). And the Church accepted women as prayer partners (Acts 1:14).

The Church would almost certainly seem to have appointed woman DEACONESSES (Romans 16:1, see below). And in referring to Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11, the Greek text does not refer to “their wives” — i.e. “the wives of Deacons” — but to “wives”, which would mean that wives may well have been Deaconesses.

Many Greek scholars see indications in the Scriptures that the Church appointed woman ELDERS (see below). And modern Bible translations acknowledge the possibility that JUNIAS, in Romans 16:7, may have been a woman APOSTLE. (“Outstanding among the Apostles” — NIV and the Bible Society’s Neue Genfer Uebersetzung).

Significantly, the New Testament does not EXCLUDE either man or woman from any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit WHERE these gifts are listed in the New Testament.

As an example, Rev. Reg Codrington says about the gift of PASTORING:

“PASTORING IS A GIFT, listed in Ephesians 4 without limitations.”

(Codrington, Dr. R.B. 1989. ORDINATION & ACCREDITATION IN BAPTIST POLITY. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

That, incidentally, from a man who holds the HIERARCHICAL view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There IS ONE example from New Testament PRACTICE that we may perhaps view as negative for the egalitarian view. This concerns the DISCIPLES of Jesus.

Those who hold the hierarchical view often point out that Jesus Christ appointed only male disciples. (Luke 8:1-4, 9:1-2).

Does this have any significance?

First, let us notice that this is an argument from SILENCE. In other words, the Bible does not TELL us plainly what the significance of this is. In general, arguments from silence are considered bad theology.

More importantly, we notice that Jesus Christ also chose only JEWS as His disciples. Does this signify that the Church should only be open to Jews? Jesus Christ also did not baptize CONVERTS. Neither did He build a CHURCH.

So it is not wise to base our Church practice entirely on the earthly example of our Lord.

6. THE DAY OF PENTECOST

A key example in the New Testament that we have not yet dealt with is the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit on the day of PENTECOST. In this passage there is a strong suggestion that both MEN AND WOMEN preached to the crowds that day.

On the day of Pentecost, the disciples “declared the wonders of God in many tongues.”

We read in Acts 2:6,

“A crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. (…) Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?'”

The apostle Peter replied, in Acts 2:17,

“‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.'”

Let us take another look at this explanation of Peter’s of what was happening that day.

He refers to an Old Testament prophecy, of Joel 2:28, which reads,

“Your sons AND daughters will prophesy.”

THAT is his explanation for what is happening.

Does this not suggest that both men AND women were preaching to the crowd that day?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *

Let us also notice an important point concerning the original Greek text.

On two occasions, the NIV calls these preachers MEN (verses 7 & 15),

“Are not all these MEN who are speaking Galileans?”

But the original GREEK TEXT uses the word HOUTOI — “Are not all these PERSONS who speak Galileans?”

The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines this word HOUTOI without reference to gender as “these ONES, visibly present here”. (Thayer, J.H. 1889, reprinted 1988. Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing House).

7. A BRIEF REFERENCE TO CHURCH HISTORY

I would like also today to refer to Church HISTORY, to show that the egalitarian view of women is supported by the HISTORY of the early Church.

My reference to history will only be BRIEF, since a close examination of Church history would go far beyond the scope of my talk today.

Several prominent Church historians have argued the case that Church history shows us that women enjoyed equality, and exercised a prominent role in the Church, well into the second century.

The German Church historian Kurt Dietrich Schmidt says (my translation),

“The women played a very prominent role (grosse Rolle) in the early Church. For the first time in occidental, hellenistic religiosity the woman here received full equality of rights. This fact alone must have held a great power of attraction for many women. In the time of Paul, and right into the second century, women appear as prophetesses. (…)

Indeed, women must have so pressed themselves into the foreground that nearly every early writer from the time of Paul onwards omits any admonition that would send them back to their (so-called) proper bounds”

(Schmidt, K.D. 1960. KIRCHENGESCHICHTE. Goettingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

He adds, however,

“The women were not able to sustain this position in the Church in the long run.”

The change is said to have taken place around A.D. 130 to 140. The famous Church historian Karl Heussi states that this came about because (my translation) “the development (of the Church) tended towards more set forms” at this time.

(Heussi, K. 1907, 1960, 1971. KOMPENDIUM DER KIRCHENGESCHICHTE. Tuebingen : J.C.B. Mohr.)

This would certainly be an area which would bear more extensive study.

8. SUBMISSION OF WIVES: EPH. 5-6 & COL. 3-4

The New Testament speaks clearly about the SUBMISSION of women. Or rather, it speaks about the submission of WIVES within the marriage relationship.

We must take a serious look at these texts if we want to be honest about the Bible’s teaching concerning women.

There are two key passages which speak about the SUBMISSION of wives.

In Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 we read,

“Wives, submit to your husbands.”

Or as another Bible version (LB) has it:

“You wives must submit to your husbands’ leadership.”

On the SURFACE of it, this seems quite plain. At least it does to the HIERARCHICAL view. You will find that the hierarchical view usually stops with these verses without considering what comes after or before.

Remember that we should never look at Bible verses in ISOLATION, but always in their CONTEXT.

Therefore I would like us to observe some things that STAND OUT about these passages on submission.

These are points that we seldom take note of:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the first place, each of these passages GOES ON to say: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters” — SO THAT they read like this (Ephesians 5:22, 6:5),

“Wives, submit to your husbands (…) Slaves, obey your earthly masters.”

Now regarding SLAVERY, we are all very QUICK to say, “Oh, but slavery was a barbaric practice. We know that the early Christian Church never approved of SLAVERY!”

And yet, when we come to the verse about WIVES, we say, “Oh, well, that was quite NORMAL!”

Do you see the discrepancy here?

Many theologians are of the opinion today that these passages, in BOTH cases, were addressing ABNORMAL situations.

SLAVERY is NOT a normal practice. Slavery is not a Christian practice, and it never was. PAUL encouraged Christian slaves to FREE themselves from their masters (1 Corinthians 7:21):

“Were you a slave when you were called? (…) If you can gain your freedom, do so.”

Certainly, Christian slaves were to be SUBMISSIVE to their masters. BUT: that did not mean that the Christian Church approved of slavery.

Indications are that the same applied to Christian WIVES.

The Christian Church did not APPROVE of unsaved husbands LORDING it over their wives as they pleased. And YET it said: be submissive all the same.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 are speaking into ABNORMAL situations.

We must REMEMBER the circumstances under which wives lived at the time. Often wives were living with unbelieving husbands — and in typical Greek and Roman fashion, these husbands LORDED it over their wives, sometimes with great cruelty and brutality.

The Church did not APPROVE of this relationship between husband and wife. Nevertheless, it advised wives not to rebel, but to SUBMIT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us imagine for a moment that believing wives had NOT submitted. Imagine how that would have reflected on their Christian faith. Imagine if Christian wives had become openly REBELLIOUS and RESENTFUL towards their husbands.

What kind of a name would that have given their Christian faith?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some important verses in this regard are 1 Peter 3:1-2. These verses support the view that Paul was speaking into an abnormal or extra-ordinary situation:

Peter says (this is Peter now, in 1 Peter 3:1-2),

“Wives (…) be submissive to your husbands, SO THAT if any of them do not believe the Word, they may be won over without words by the behaviour of their wives.”

Also in Titus 2:5 we read that older women should train younger women “to be subject to their husbands, SO THAT no one will malign the Word of God.”

Notice in each case those important words “SO THAT.” The submission of wives is not an end in itself. It is there SO THAT the WORD OF GOD might prosper. It is there SO THAT they may SAVE their unbelieving husbands.

The submission of wives, in New Testament times, served as a WITNESS to an unChristian world. It was a command that served the GREATER command,

“Go and make disciples of all nations.” (Matthew 28:19).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would like also to look at a phrase that nearly all of these verses on submission have in common. That is the phrase “as to the Lord,” or “as is fitting in the Lord,” or variations of it. We very often overlook this phrase.

Paul says, in Ephesians 5:22,

“Wives, submit to your husbands AS TO THE LORD.”

In Colossians 3:18, we also read,

“Wives, submit to your husbands AS IS FITTING IN THE LORD.”

What does this mean?

Many theologians interpret these phrases as meaning that it is not the HUSBAND who is the ultimate master of his wife. It is the LORD WHO STANDS ABOVE BOTH OF THEM.

A wife should submit “as to the LORD,” or “as is fitting in the LORD.” She submits NOT as to her HUSBAND. She does not owe her submission directly to HIM. She does it for the sake of the LORD, who stands above BOTH of them.

Again this points to the fact that wives in the New Testament were in a SPECIAL SITUATION. This situation was not NORMAL in the eyes of the Church. And yet for the sake of the LORD, these wives should not rebel, but submit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps we could imagine a little girl who always wears jeans and T-shirts at home.

One day her mother is informed that GRANNY is to visit. So her mother says to her, “Darling, go to your room and find me your frilly dress.”

“Why?” asks the little girl. “I ALWAYS wear my jeans and T-shirts.”

And her mother replies, “Go on, darling! Do it for GRANNY’S sake!”

It is not USUAL or TYPICAL for the little girl to wear a frilly dress. But because she is facing a SPECIAL SITUATION, her mother urges her to wear it — especially for Granny.

SO it was in New Testament times. For the sake of their WITNESS to the Lord, women were urged to submit.

This would also tie in very well with what we just said concerning Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1-2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One last point concerning the passage from Ephesians 5. And that is that even today, there may be occasions when, for the sake of the LORD, a woman ought to submit.

Paul says that the wife should submit because “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.”

Here there is a definite reference to the preeminence of the MAN in the marriage relationship.

The egalitarian view does not OVERLOOK this — and so, in this sense, the so-called “egalitarian” view of women is NOT entirely egalitarian.

But first, let us look at what the headship of Christ does NOT mean. The HEADSHIP of Christ does NOT mean that we cannot have perfect unity and fellowship with Him.

Although Christ is the HEAD of the Church, YET He calls us His friends and His brothers and sisters. (Hebrews 2:11, Mark 3:35, John 15:14).

Friends, brothers, sisters: these are relationships of EQUALITY. A brother does not rule over a brother. Neither does a friend rule over a friend.

Just so, in the MARRIAGE relationship, a husband and wife may enjoy perfect fellowship and unity together with the HUSBAND as the head. Although the husband is the HEAD, an EQUALITY may exist, as between friends or brothers or sisters.

William Barclay comments that this Scripture on the headship of Christ refers to a relationship of “love which never exercises a tyranny of control.”

(Barclay, Rev. W. 1956. THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON. Edinburgh : The Saint Andrew Press).

The theologian John Rushdoony (who holds a hierarchical view) makes a similar point: “The subordination of the wife is not that of the slave.”

(Rushdoony, R.J. 1973. THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOWEVER, when this fellowship and unity between husband and wife BREAKS DOWN, the relationship CHANGES.

What happens when the fellowship and unity is broken between Christ and His CHURCH?

The Bible shows us that at this point a relationship of AUTHORITY takes over. We see this happening, for example, in the CORINTHIAN Church. Here members held COMMUNION “in an unworthy manner,” and they fell under the JUDGEMENT of God.

Paul then said to them, in 1 Corinthians 11:32,

“(You) are JUDGED by the Lord. (You) are being DISCIPLINED so that (you)

will not be condemned with the world.”

In the SAME way, in our fallen world, we cannot expect the MARRIAGE relationship always to be a relationship of unity and harmony. Therefore it would appear that God provided the HEADSHIP of the man as an EMERGENCY measure should sin enter the relationship.

In such a case, the headship of man is an indication of SIN in the relationship, as it was with Adam and Eve after the Fall.

9. THE CASE OF SARAH: 1 PET. 3

I would like to add a note today about SARAH (the wife of Abraham) in 1 Peter 3:6. Those who support the hierarchical view sometimes quote this verse.

“Holy women of the past,” says Peter, “were submissive to their own husbands, LIKE SARAH, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.”

First, let us look at the Biblical CONTEXT. In the CONTEXT, Peter has just been speaking about a wife’s WITNESS to her unsaved husband.

Therefore the Bible shows us the example of Sarah as an example for women who need to submit under difficult circumstances. But it surely does NOT intend it as a licence for husbands to lord it over their wives.

The Scriptures tell us that, as Christians, we are to “submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).

And they tell us this IN THE CONTEXT of husband-wife relationships in Ephesians 5! “Submit to ONE ANOTHER. (…) Wives, submit to your husbands. (…) Husbands, love your wives.”

The Scriptures admonish husbands also to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF UP for her.” (Ephesians 5:25). They are to GIVE THEMSELVES UP as Christ Himself gave Himself up.

John Yoder — a Mennonite theologian — points out that the Bible “calls the dominant partner to a kind of submission of his own.”

(Yoder, J.H. 1972. THE POLITICS OF JESUS. Grand Rapids : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

10. REMOVING HEADDRESSES: 1 COR. 11

In 1 Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul speaks of the need for a woman to cover her head. This, he says, is so as not to “dishonour” her head. He further refers to the woman as “the glory of man”, and to the head-covering as “a sign of authority on her head”.

Church historians tell us that the Corinthian women had been abandoning the conventions of their society, thereby sending shock-waves through the non-Christian community.

Dr. Norman Hillyer, of Ponsborne College, says,

“For a woman in Corinth to be unveiled in public was as shocking in its social significance as being SHORN, the contemporary punishment for a prostitute.”

(Guthrie, D., Motyer, J.A., Stibbs, A.M., Wiseman, D.J. 1970. THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED. Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).

The women at Corinth had been uncovering their heads. This, said Paul, was a “dishonour” and a “disgrace” for a woman (verses 5-6):

“If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.”

Paul wanted women in the Corinthian Church to keep their heads COVERED. And the reason for this, says Paul, is that “the woman ought to have a sign of AUTHORITY on her head” (verse 10).

There are two probable meanings to this phrase, “a sign of authority on her head.”

In the first place, the head-covering in that day was a sign of the woman’s SUBMISSION to her husband.

And also, it often represented the HONOURED STATUS of a wife, and the “protection” of her husband.

(Rushdoony, R.J. 1973. THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But WHY were the Corinthian women removing the head-coverings from their heads? Why were they doing it at all?

Speaking IN GENERAL on the subordination of women, the Mennonite theologian John Yoder comments as follows:

“Why was there any point, in that ancient time, in directing an imperative to (…) women to subordinate themselves? Was this not taken for granted? Was there any other choice in society? (…) For the Apostles to encourage slaves and women to be subordinate, there must have been some specific reason for them to have been tempted to do otherwise. What could that have been? (…) Only if something in the life or the preaching of the Church had given them the idea that their subordinate status had been challenged or changed, would there be any temptation to the kind of unruliness to which these texts are addressed.”

(Yoder, J.H. 1972. THE POLITICS OF JESUS. Grand Rapids : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

We have already touched on the revolutionary nature of the gospel message with regard to women.

In several respects, we have seen that the gospel message was a message of EQUALITY between man and woman.

We have looked at the example of Jesus, the day of Pentecost, the New Testament Church, the teaching of the Apostles, and early Church history. And we have seen THROUGHOUT how Christian women enjoyed unequalled privilege and status in the Church.

However, Paul’s concern was that the Christian wives of that day should NOT now put their freedom out on DISPLAY.

The UNSAVED people of Corinth looked at all this, and INTERPRETED it as an act of DEFIANCE.

Prof. Ralph Martin of Fuller Theological Seminary says in this regard,

“An unveiled woman in public would be despised and insulted (…) The accepted convention (was) that women SHOULD be veiled in public.”

(Guthrie, D., Motyer, J.A., Stibbs, A.M., Wiseman, D.J. 1970. THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED. Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).

And William Barclay says,

“It is far better to abandon rights which may be a stumbling-block to some than to insist on them. It is the fashion to decry convention; but a man should always think twice before he defies the conventions and shocks others.”

(Barclay, Rev. W. 1954. THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS. Edinburgh : The Saint Andrew Press).

The Apostles were therefore wary of Christian women FLAUNTING their newfound Christian freedom — because the wider society would misinterpret this.

Of course, what was happening was understandable to the members of the CHURCH. Yet it was OFFENSIVE to the people out there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me illuminate this point by way of an illustration.

Is it ever wrong for a little girl to play with dolls?

Of course not, you answer.

But missionaries have found that it is wrong sometimes.

The missionaries tell the heathen that it is WRONG to worship IDOLS. The heathen see the little daughters of the missionaries playing with DOLLS. They think that the dolls are IDOLS, such as they worship in their houses.

Ought not the little girl give up playing with dolls until the people know the difference between a doll and an idol? For the sake of those whom her parents are trying to teach about the true God, the little girl must give up her own pleasure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A similar situation existed in the Corinthian Church. And therefore Paul told the Corinthian women to put those head-coverings BACK on their heads. He said, in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12,

“The woman OUGHT to have a symbol of authority over her head (…) BUT, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”

Notice that all important BUT…

Yes, a woman should KEEP on her head the worldly symbol of her submission. BUT, IN THE LORD, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

Thus the women at Corinth had FIRST to consider the opinions and emotions of the unsaved people in their community. BUT, HOWEVER, IN THE LORD, they should know that they had a newfound equality and dignity.

Let us note that this argument concerning 1 Corinthians 11 is not cultural, and it is not feminist. We are not just saying out of the blue that Paul’s words are CONTEXTUAL.

The Bible ITSELF provides us with the context with the word “however” or “but” in verse 11.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is interesting also to note that Paul, in this passage, lays down no COMMANDS. He says,

“Judge for yourselves.”

And he speaks about that which seems “proper” (verse 13).

And he CLOSES the subject with the words (verse 16),

“IF anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other PRACTICE — nor do the Churches of God.”

Now this wording suggests again that we are not dealing here with an eternally binding COMMANDMENT. Rather we are dealing here — in the words of Paul — with a PRACTICE.

It is CONCEIVABLE, therefore, that some believers might want to be CONTENTIOUS about it.

Nevertheless, says Paul, the Church ought to present a UNITED front on this issue. Paul does not want anyone to be CONTENTIOUS about this issue in any of the Churches.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now AS in Ephesians 5, so this passage of 1 Corinthians 11 speaks of the HEADSHIP of the man.

It uses a slightly different WORDING (verse 3):

“The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

The interpretation here is similar to Ephesians 5:23. We have already dealt with that, so I have no need to go into it in any detail.

The relationships spoken of in this verse, relationships between woman and man and Christ and God, are relationships again of “love which never exercise a tyranny of control.” (William Barclay).

Nevertheless, these verses do AGAIN SUPPORT the teaching that women should be SUBMISSIVE IF an extra-ordinary situation arises which requires it of them as Christian believers to submit.

11. WOMEN TO REMAIN SILENT: 1 COR. 14

The next passage we shall look at deals with Paul’s commandment, in 1 Corinthians 14:34,

“Women should remain silent in the Churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

Would these words not rule out women PREACHING? Would they not rule out women TEACHING or PROPHESYING in the Church? In fact, would they not rule out even women PRAYING, or reading from the SCRIPTURES in Church?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many of those who hold the hierarchical view claim that this verse means just that: “Women shall remain silent in the Churches.”

They say that this applies not only to Church WORSHIP. It applies also to the CHURCH MEETING. They claim that the Scriptures forbid the woman to speak at the Church Meeting, and many in fact emphasize that a woman should not VOTE at a Church Meeting.

Dr. Bryan Williams quotes the words of John Robbins,

“Women are not allowed to speak aloud before the congregation, even to ask questions in a Church Meeting.”

(Williams, Dr. B.A. 1989. THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does this verse MEAN:

“Women should remain silent in the Churches”?

We have seen that all the indications are that women were indeed PROPHESYING in the Church. They were speaking in TONGUES in the Church. They were PRAYING in the Church. And they appeared to share in the decision-making process at CHURCH MEETINGS.

I say “all the indications are” because that seems the most natural way of understanding the Bible texts we have already looked at.

The most likely explanation to this verse — “Women should remain silent” — is that Paul is referring to FEMININE CHATTER in the pews. The women couldn’t follow the preacher, so they began to ask questions of their neighbours in the PEWS. Perhaps, as someone has suggested, they were even interrupting the preacher as he preached! So Paul said, “Women should remain silent.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The hierarchical view rejects this interpretation.

It points out that Paul refers here to the LAW. The Law, they say, is eternally binding, and cannot refer to a temporary problem like nattering in the pews.

To quote Paul: “Women should remain silent in the Churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, AS THE LAW SAYS.” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

Usually, theologians interpret “the Law” here as meaning “the Torah.” That is the five books of Moses, which TOGETHER are called “the Law” in Judaism.

Now the HIERARCHICAL view claims that the SPECIFIC verse which Paul refers to is Genesis 3:16. There God says to the woman,

“Your husband (…) will RULE over you.”

We have already dealt with this verse, and we saw that it applies to the fallen creation before salvation in Christ.

But let us consider this question of the LAW.

Firstly — when Paul says that women should be in submission in the Church, he is talking about submission to — WHAT?

Is he talking about submission to the MALE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGA-TION? Or is he talking about submission to the PREACHING OF THE WORD? Surely, the most LOGICAL assumption is that they were to be in submission to the preaching of the WORD.

In that case, when Paul refers to the Law, or Torah, he may well be referring to Deuteronomy 27:9. Here MOSES commands the people of Israel to keep SILENCE as they listen to the Law of God:

“Be silent, O Israel, and listen! (…) Obey the Lord your God and follow His commands and decrees…”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And again, the hierarchical view tends to neglect the CONTEXT in which these verses are set. It looks at a small bunch of verses near the end of the chapter, but fails to take any wider view.

If we look at the WHOLE of 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, we find several references to ORDER in the Church.

Earlier on, in verses 26-28 Paul tells the brothers and sisters how they should STRUCTURE their services in an orderly way. And notice that he says here,

“EVERYONE (Greek HEKASTOS) has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.”

He uses the word EVERYONE, or EACH ONE. How can one say that this does not include WOMEN taking part in the Church service? EVERYONE had words of instruction, revelations, and tongues.

Then, in verse 33, Paul reminds the Corinthians,

“God is not a God of DISORDER but of PEACE.”

AGAIN, he is speaking of ORDER in the Church.

Again in verse 40, he says,

“But everything should be done in a fitting and ORDERLY way.”

It seems logical, then, that when he addresses the subject of women keeping silent in the Church, this is ALSO a matter concerning Church ORDER. The women were disrupting the ORDER of services through their feminine chatter.

In fact in the very next verse (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), Paul says,

“If (the women) want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.”

This implies again that the women did not UNDERSTAND something in the Church service. Therefore they began to inquire of ONE ANOTHER, and caused a disturbance in the pews.

12. TEACHING IN THE CHURCH: 1 TIM. 2

There is hardly a doctrine in the Church that doesn’t have its THORN IN THE FLESH.

We may say that of the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Doctrine of Predestination, the Doctrine of Assurance, the Doctrine of Baptism, and of many other doctrines. It is no less true concerning the Doctrine of WOMEN.

The most difficult passage from the EGALITARIAN point of view is arguably 1 TIMOTHY 2.

But let us put this in perspective by pointing out that if you hold the HIERARCHICAL view, your problems are probably much greater.

1 Timothy 2 is a difficult passage — but if we examine it closely and carefully, I believe it will also become clear to us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The key verses (1 Timothy 2:11-14) read as follows:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

Many have asked the question here: “Does this passage apply only for that certain period in HISTORY, or does it apply for ALL TIME?”

WILLIAM BARCLAY is a good representative of those who claim that this passage only has a TEMPORARY application. He says,

“This is a passage which cannot be read out of its historical context. It springs entirely from the situation in which it was written.”

(Barclay, Rev. W. 1956. THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON. Edinburgh : The Saint Andrew Press).

Now IF we say that this passage applies only TEMPORARILY, then on what BASIS do we reach that conclusion? Do we base it on SCRIPTURE, or on CULTURE? (See the Introduction).

There are a number of SCRIPTURAL reasons why we may assume that 1 Timothy 2 is speaking into a SPECIFIC CONTEXT — and I am going to back this statement up in no less than 3 important ways. And I point out that if we have THREE pointers all pointing the same way in Scripture, then we are likely to have a solid case.

Now the arguments that I am going to present may be difficult to follow by ear, so if you are unable to follow all of it now, you might like to refer again to my notes at some later stage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the first place, Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:12, does not speak by way of COMMANDMENT, but by way of PERMISSION.

He says,

“I do not PERMIT a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”

And then the GREEK text continues,

“But (I PERMIT) her to be in silence.”

This is an unusual wording indeed. It is reminiscent of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:6 (AV). One can hardly miss it:

“But I speak this by PERMISSION, and not of commandment.”

Although the Greek word is not the same in these passages, it is similar in MEANING.

There does not HAVE to be a connection between those verses, but it seems a reasonable connection to make. As in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is speaking of what is EXPEDIENT. He is not speaking of eternally binding truths.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To put this in another way, Paul would seem to be speaking here as a CONGREGATIONALIST — and we believe that the New Testament CHURCH was Congregational.

Let us imagine that the FCC PRESIDENT were to say, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”

How would we respond to that?

We would likely say, “Thank you, Mr. President, we love you, and we respect your opinion. We are happy that that is what you do in your Church.” But I do not believe that we would all react as though we had heard an ex cathedra pronouncement from the Pope!

The Rev. Gilfillan says concerning this verse,

“So far as this particular sentence is concerned, then, we have no command, but an indication to Timothy of what Paul’s own customary practice is.”

(Gilfillan, Rev. A.S. 1989. THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the second place, Paul uses words in 1 Timothy 2 which, in the words of Rev. Brian Harris, indicate “that which is proper for the situation rather than that which is the eternal norm.”

(Harris, Rev. B. 1989. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

Specifically, Paul has just been speaking about “modesty”, “decency”, “propriety”, and the “appropriate” (verses 9 & 10). THAT is the context in which this appears. He wants the women to do what is APPROPRIATE in their situation.

To speak of that which is APPROPRIATE is a different thing altogether to that which is ETERNALLY BINDING.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thirdly (and this is the argument which may be most difficult to follow by ear), the HIERARCHICAL view points out that this passage refers to the CREATION AND THE FALL OF MAN.

Let us listen to the words of the New Bible Commentary, which takes the hierarchical position ON this particular passage. It says:

“The appeal to the mind and purpose of the Creator shows clearly that Paul is not basing what he says simply on the position assigned to woman in the society of that day. He is rather appealing to a guiding principle of universal and abiding application.”

(Guthrie, D., Motyer, J.A., Stibbs, A.M., Wiseman, D.J. 1970. THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED. Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)

Yet what the hierarchical view fails to ask is: WHAT is Paul supporting by referring to the creation and the Fall? OF COURSE, Paul speaks of the creation and the Fall. But Paul does not explain to us WHY he refers to it.

By quoting from Genesis, does Paul want to support the teaching that women should be SILENT? Or does he want to support the teaching that women should behave APPROPRIATELY within their cultural situation? We cannot simply ASSUME that Paul is supporting this or that.

In the Biblical context, it would seem that Paul is saying, “If indeed the woman should be SUBJECT in this situation, here is A reasoning to back this up.”

(An interesting point: when Paul says that Eve was deceived and not Adam, is he perhaps humorously reflecting the view of non-Christian society? After all, he says elsewhere — in Romans 5:12 — that it was through ADAM that sin entered the world.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us notice that there are direct parallels here to 1 Corinthians 11, which we dealt with earlier. Let us recall that in 1 Corinthians 11, the Scriptures instruct women not to remove their headdresses, seemingly because this is causing an OUTRAGE in their society.

And here in 1 Timothy 2 there are indications that women are causing an outrage in their society by teaching MEN. The two chapters use a similar WORDING.

It is important that we compare Scripture with Scripture here, particularly because this is a much disputed passage.

IN 1 Corinthians 11 (as in 1 Timothy 2), Paul spoke of Adam’s creation before Eve:

“Woman (came) from man.”

But THEN he said, in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12,

“In the LORD, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”

In other words, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul first spoke of the situation after the FALL — and then he spoke of the situation in the CHURCH. And in each case he uses symbolic language taken from the creation of man.

There are therefore two sections to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:

1. 1 Corinthians 11:9 “Woman came from man.” 2. 1 Corinthians 11:12 “Man is born of woman.”

Notice that in the SECOND part of his argument, he REVERSES the first point that he made.

Moving on to 1 Timothy 2 — the passage we are dealing with in this section — we might have found BOTH parts of the argument as WELL. However, we only find the FIRST:

1. 1 Timothy 2:13 “Adam was formed first.” 2. … …

Paul argues here that Adam was formed first — or that “woman came from man”. Yet he does not here mention the SECOND part of the argument as it appears in 1 Corinthians 11. Why is the SECOND part of the argument MISSING in 1 Timothy 2?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps I can clarify this by way of an illustration.

Imagine that the Jones family lives all year round in a small country village. Then they go for a holiday for Christmas in central SYDNEY — and each of their two children gets a BICYCLE under the Christmas tree.

The next morning, the mother says to her daughter, “Sally, don’t ride your bicycle. It’s too dangerous. But you can ride it when we get back home. It’s safe in our little home-town.”

A few minutes later, her SON enters the room, gripping the handlebars of his new bicycle. “Johnny,” says his mother, “don’t ride your bicycle. It’s too dangerous.”

Does this mean that Johnny should NEVER ride his bicycle?

To find out what the mother is really saying, we just need to compare what she said to SALLY to find out. And we see by making a simple COMPARISON that her command to Johnny was NOT eternally binding. Yes indeed, he could ride his bicycle — so long as it was in their little home-town.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In all PROBABILITY, this is what is happening in 1 Timothy 2. Here Paul is saying much the same as he says in 1 Corinthians 11. Except that here he doesn’t specifically state the second part of his argument.

So if we take the WHOLE of Scripture into account, it seems likely in 1 Timothy 2 Paul does not want women to cause an outrage in their non-Christian society. He is speaking about what is APPROPRIATE for women in that situation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This passage of 1 Timothy 2 is therefore, in all likelihood, speaking to a SPECIFIC situation. And we know this because the SCRIPTURES give us — not one, not two, but at least THREE specific indications that this is so.

And I point out that if we have THREE pointers all pointing the same way in Scripture, we probably have a solid case.

13. PASSAGES REGARDING ELDERS: 1 TIM. 3 & TIT. 1

The final passages I would like to deal with today before I wrap up my Seminar are 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and these perhaps are the crux of my message today. These passages deal specifically with the election of ELDERS in the Church.

These are two key passages that Christians have often used to support the EXCLUSION of women from the ELDERSHIP.

These are very important verses, because they leave BEHIND all the argument about the status of women in general, and they go directly to the question of women Elders and Pastors in particular.

The Rev. Brian Harris has said,

“In the minds of most people, the discussion does not revolve around the value or worth of women, or even over the right the right of women to have a meaningful ministry. IT BOILS DOWN TO A SINGLE TOPIC — CAN WE HAVE WOMEN ELDERS (BE THEY ORDAINED OR NOT).”

(Harris, Rev. B. 1989. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars, Republic of South Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now the HIERARCHICAL argument runs as follows:

The New Testament says,

“An Elder (…) MUST be the husband of one wife.”

Therefore an Elder shall be a man.

Rev. Owen Fourie has stated this as follows:

“Clearly, eldership is strictly the domain of men, the covenant heads of families. For a woman to occupy the office of elder she must be the husband of one wife!”

(Fourie, Rev. O. 1991. MINISTERING IN THE CONGREGATIONS OF CHRIST. EFCC Publication. Republic of South Africa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We should note, however, that those who hold this view base it on certain TRANSLATIONS of the Bible. Usually, they pay little or no attention to the original Greek text.

It is very dangerous to do theology without looking at the original Greek. In fact if a minister does not pass his Greek exams, most colleges will not pass him, and most Churches will not accept him for ordination. It is vital to refer to the Greek text.

Some Bibles, for example, refer to Mary not as a virgin, but as a young woman. They refer to Jesus Christ not as God, but as A God. And earlier we saw how the NIV translated “houtoi” (these PERSONS) as “these MEN”. How should we know which translation is correct?

What we do is, we refer to the original New Testament Greek.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first important passage I shall deal with concerning Elders is Titus 1:6ff.

Some Bible versions translate this as follows: “An elder (…) must be the husband of one wife.” (NIV).

That translation, of course, suggests that an elder should be a MAN. Note again that it is a TRANSLATION from the original Greek, and therefore depends on the interpretation that the TRANSLATORS brought to the text.

A direct TRANSLITERATION — or a WORD FOR WORD translation from the New Testament Greek — gives us the following:

“If ANYONE (or any PERSON — Greek TIS) is unreprovable, husband of one wife, having believing children, not in accusation of profligacy or unruly,” such a PERSON may be appointed as an Elder.”

(Nestle, & Marshall, Rev. A. 1958. THE R.S.V. INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. London : Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited).

Also important is that this passage CONTINUES without any reference to GENDER. It does not mention male or female.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a similar vein, the passage concerning elders in 1 Timothy 3:1 is introduced as follows: “If ANYONE (Greek TIS) aspires to oversight, he (or she) desires a good work…” (Nestle-Marshall-RSV).

The passage again continues without any reference to gender — male or female.

There is therefore no clear indication in these passages that an Elder must be a man. ANYONE may be an Elder — subject to the conditions stated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In fact Paul — writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit — chose to use the Greek word TIS — ANYONE. This word is defined by the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament as:

“a certain one; used of persons and things concerning which the writer cannot or will not speak more particularly”.

(Thayer, J.H. 1889, reprinted 1988. A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing House).

If only MEN should be chosen as Elders, would Paul not likely have used another wording? And yet he chose to say, “If any PERSON aspires to oversight (in the Church), such a one desires a noble task,” and so on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It may further be argued that some of the qualities of Elders mentioned in the New Testament are primarily FEMININE:

“ruling the own household well…” “hospitable…,” and “having children in subjection with all gravity…” (Nestle-Marshall-RSV).

Of course, we cannot say with CERTAINTY that Paul was thinking of women in these verses. But it is a strong possibility.

Note that IN these lines I quote, the GENDER — male or female — is NOT stated in the original New Testament Greek.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There would also be a case for excluding women from the DIACONATE, similar to the argument that is sometimes applied to Elders — if it were not for the original Greek text, and clear verses to the contrary.

Some Bible translations say (including the NIV), concerning Deacons (1 Timothy 3:8,12:

“Deacons (…) are to be MEN worthy of respect (…) A deacon MUST be the husband of but one wife.”

That is virtually the identical wording as applies to elders.

However, if one examines the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT, one again discovers that there is no mention of GENDER in the New Testament Greek.

Also, the New Testament SUPPORTS the election of women DEACONS. Paul said in Romans 16:1,

“I commend to you Phoebe (who is without any doubt a woman) a DEACONESS (Greek DIAKONOS) of the Church in Cenchrea.”

There are some who say that Phoebe was not in fact a Deaconess, but merely a SERVANT of the Church. However, there is no evidence on the basis of New Testament Greek, or even the context of that passage, for assuming that.

We also have indications in 1 Timothy 3:11 that women were in fact serving as Deacons, as I noted before — and we have noted that women appear to have served as “fellow workers” with the Apostles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a further point — a crucial point — about the interpretation of the New Testament Greek on the subject of Elders.

A direct transliteration from the New Testament Greek of Titus 1:6 gives us the following:

“If anyone is unreprovable, husband of one wife, having believing children, not in accusation of profligacy or unruly,” such a person may be appointed as an Elder. (Nestle-Marshall-RSV).

Now there are two ways in which one can interpret this.

Firstly, one could translate it: “If anyone is unreprovable, (anyone)

husband of one wife, (anyone) having believing children, (anyone) not in accusation of profligacy or unruly,” such a person may be elected as an Elder. In other words, if such characteristics are NOT EXCLUDED in a certain person, such a person may be elected to the Eldership.

OR one may choose an INCLUSIVE interpretation of the text, as follows: “If anyone is unreprovable, AND the husband of one wife, AND having believing children, AND not in accusation of profligacy or unruly,” such a person may be appointed as an Elder.

It has to be one or the other.

Now according to the second interpretation, an elder MUST be the husband of one wife, yes. BUT — he MUST also have at least two children, and his children MUST believe — otherwise he shall not be an elder.

That would immediately exclude any unmarried man from the ministry, and even a man who has only one child, or a child who does not believe.

So there are some VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS with the HIERARCHICAL view when it comes to these passages on Elders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One final point concerning the passages on Elders.

An objection that the HIEARARCHICAL view sometimes raises against the appointment of women Elders is that the function of Elders is to “rule” in the Church, or to “DIRECT the affairs of the Church” (1 Timothy 5:17).

Over and against this, we read in Isaiah 3:12-15,

“‘Youths oppress my people, women rule over them (…) You have ruined my vineyard’ (…) declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty.”

Would not these verses from Isaiah 3 be in conflict with those of 1 Timohty 5, if indeed we were to accept women as Elders in the Church?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the first place, let us note that the word used for “rule” in Isaiah 3:12 is the Hebrew word MASHAL. This particular Hebrew word is often used in a very harsh sense — as for example in Daniel 11:3: “(He) will rule with great power and do as he pleases”.

It is a word which differs significantly from other Hebrew words for “rule”, such as SHAPHAT, which refers to the rule of the Judges (Ruth 1:1). In all likelihood, Deborah was one of these Judges of Israel (Judges 4:4):

“Deborah, a prophetess (…) was LEADING Israel at that time.”

It would appear, therefore, that the word MASHAL, in Isaiah 3:12, particularly in the CONTEXT (the “oppression” of God’s people is referred to in the same verse) condemns the irresponsible domination, or even tyranny, of women over the nation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Secondly, we should understand that Elders, in a Congregational Church setting, would direct the affairs of the Church UNDER the Church Meeting — and naturally, under CHRIST first and foremost. They would rule, as it were, with DEFERENCE to the Church Meeting under Christ.

Jesus Christ said (Matthew 20:25-26. See also 1 Peter 5:2-3),

“You know that the rulers of the GENTILES lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.”

It is important to bear in mind that we are a CONGREGATIONAL Church — and we believe that the NEW TESTAMENT Church was a Congregational Church. We believe as Congregationalists is that an Eldership SERVES the congregation. Those who serve as Elders are SERVANTS of the Body of Christ.

14. THE PASTORATE

A final reason why the question of Elders is so important is that the office of Elder in the New Testament overlaps or intersects with the office of PASTOR.

In the New Testament, we find that there is no such thing as the OFFICE of Pastor. There is only the GIFT of pastoring.

Traditionally, the CONGREGATIONAL Church has held the idea of a SHARED Pastorate. It is the ELDERSHIP TOGETHER which serves the congregation. Then the Church releases one or more Elders from their secular occupation to serve the Church full-time.

That, of course, is a very wide subject in itself, and is beyond the scope of my present talk. But it is important in this sense — that if we accept women ELDERS, we are automatically accepting women PASTORS.

Many Congregational Churches have only DIACONATES — and these Diaconates are responsible both for the WORLDLY AND the SPIRITUAL aspects of Church leadership. It may well be said, therefore, that they effectively INCLUDE the office of ELDER. In such Churches, women Deacons effectively serve the double role of worldly and spiritual advisors to the Church.

15. HIERARCHICAL AND EGALITARIAN IN PRACTICE

The HIERARCHICAL view is of course more than just a THEORY. Depending on how far one would take it, one might be looking at a revolution in our Congregational Churches if one were to apply its teachings consistently:

1) Women would probably be forbidden to speak in services of worship, and MAY be forbidden to read from the Scriptures.

2) Women would probably be forbidden to take part in discussions at Church Meetings.

3) Women MAY be forbidden to vote in the Churches.

4) Women would likely be forbidden to serve as Deacons in the Churches.

5) Women would probably be forbidden to serve as Elders in the the Churches.

6) The Churches would probably replace with men all women who lead MIXED groups of men and women, or boys and girls.

7) Women delegates would likely be forbidden to speak at Assembly.

8) The Church would give no consideration to women with regard to the Roll of Ministers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The EGALITARIAN view, on the other hand, would recognise that the Lord blesses both women and men with the same gifts of the Spirit, and with a CALLING (that is, the specific area to which a person is called by God to EXERCISE their gift — see Acts 9:15).

This means that one would not grant women any voice or prominence or office in the Church merely because the Church accepts an egalitarian view of women. It means that that the Church would seek first to discern — as it does in ALL believers — a giftedness and a calling.

It is my personal belief — and my EXPERIENCE — that women can be a great spiritual ASSET to the Church. At present, my own congregation has (for example) a woman Elder, women Deacons, and women lay preachers. Last year our Church sent 5 women into the mission field — and the minister’s WIFE (my wife) is an ordained minister, on the Roll of Ministers of our EFCC (Rev. Mirjam Scarborough).

If indeed the egalitarian view of women in the Church is CORRECT, then the exclusion of women from certain offices or activities in the Church would effectively mean the suppression of God’s gifts in the Body, the Church, and a “neglect” of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Timothy 4:14). Thus any Church which would exclude its womenfolk from the practical and spiritual leadership of the Church could be spiritually blighted as a result.

16. WIDER PERSPECTIVE AND CONCLUSION

As in all such debates, I believe that our unity in the Spirit, as Christians, remains paramount. The Scriptures command us (Ephesians 4:3):

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

I myself would rather shut down any such debate in my Church than cause any significant disunity — and this is a deliberate policy in my Church concerning all such “secondary” issues. Any disunity or loss of love in the Church would only harm its primary task, which is to carry out the Great Commission of Christ (Matthew 28:19-20):

“Go and make disciples of all nations (…) teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our true priorities as a Church are listed clearly in the New Testament. For example:

In Titus 3:3-8, the apostle Paul lists a number of central doctrines in the Church, urging us to “STRESS THESE THINGS” (verse 8).

And in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul plainly states those things which ought to be of “FIRST IMPORTANCE” to the Church.

A close friend in the ministry, who graduated with me in 1982, holds firmly to the HIERARCHICAL view of women in the Church. He truly holds this view “to the Lord” (Romans 14:5-8). We routinely poke fun at each other over this — yet what is of vital importance between us, I believe, is that both he and I have not forgotten the things of “first importance” to the Church, and the Lord has greatly blessed both his ministry and mine as a result.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have tried to present the egalitarian view today without hiding any of its weaknesses, or exaggerating any of its strengths. I have also done my best to be true to the Scripture’s teaching on this subject.

I leave it to you to judge the validity of the arguments for yourselves.

I thank you.

17. BIBLIOGRAPHY

EGALITARIAN AND HIERARCHICAL VIEWS:

1967. THE LIVING NEW TESTAMENT. Wheaton : Tyndale House Foundation.

1970. THE IMPERIAL ANALYTICAL STUDY EDITION OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Fort Worth : Imperial Bible Publishers, Inc.

1978. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION OF THE BIBLE. New York : International Bible Society.

Brestin, S. & D. 1976. BUILDING YOUR HOUSE ON THE LORD. Illinois : Harold Shaw Publishers.

Guthrie, D., Motyer, J.A., Stibbs, A.M., Wiseman, D.J. 1970. THE NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED. Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Heussi, K. 1907, 1960, 1971. KOMPENDIUM DER KIRCHENGESCHICHTE. Tuebingen : J.C.B. Mohr.

Nestle, & Marshall, Rev. A. 1958. THE R.S.V. INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. London : Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited.

Schmidt, K.D. 1960. KIRCHENGESCHICHTE. Goettingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Thayer, J.H. 1889, reprinted 1988. A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing House.

EGALITARIAN VIEW:

Barclay, Rev. W. 1954. THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS. Edinburgh : The Saint Andrew Press.

Barclay, Rev. W. 1956. THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON. Edinburgh : The Saint Andrew Press.

Gilfillan, Rev. A.S. 1989. THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.

Harris, Rev. B. 1989. A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.

1991. NEUE GENFER UEBERSETZUNG. Genf : Genfer Bibelgesellschaft.

Van den Aardweg, Prof. E. 1989. WOMEN IN HISTORY AND THE RELEVANCE OF A CHANGING SOCIETY. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.

Yoder, J.H. 1972. THE POLITICS OF JESUS. Grand Rapids : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

HIERARCHICAL VIEW:

Codrington, Dr. R.B. 1989. ORDINATION & ACCREDITATION IN BAPTIST POLITY. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.

Fourie, Rev. O. 1991. MINISTERING IN THE CONGREGATIONS OF CHRIST. EFCC Publication. Republic of South Africa.

Holdt, M. 1989. THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.

Rushdoony, R.J. 1973. THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Williams, Dr. B.A. 1989. THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN. Baptist Union Seminars. Republic of South Africa.