PART 1: JESUS’ ATTITUDE TO WOMEN
This
series of articles challenging the orthodox position on the role of sisters in
the congregation will be intensely controversial. The author pleads for
fearless open-mindedness from the reader. Constantly and critically ask
yourself: Does what is presented conform to the ideals outlined above? Is my
bewilderment with the inconsistency I find in our community indeed justified?
No
one can object to this series being published. If the arguments are weak
contrived or factually wrong, then it will be apparent to all, and the orthodox
position will be greatly reinforced.
But
if not . . .
In
the first century A.D. the vast majority of women were extremely low in status
and greatly restricted in society, and it did not make a great deal of
difference whether a woman was Jewish or Gentile. We cannot understand the
significance of many New Testament incidents and teachings unless we know the
rather alarming facts of the matter!
Jewish
women were legally owned by their fathers and then by their husbands. Only
divorcees and widows were legally independent but the majority of these were in
poverty, and so were effectively dependent and marginalised. There was no
concept of “women and children first” – a husband was to be saved from danger
before his wife! Christmas cards can be
criticised for showing Mary on the donkey; if you had one donkey then the
husband rode and the wife walked behind. I would like to believe that Joseph
was the first “New Man” under the circumstances!
Very
interestingly a woman could in theory read in synagogue, but in practice this
was thought to be a disgrace; after all men were superior, so why use a woman?
Josephus, the Apostles’ contemporary, in Against
Apion 2:25 says “saith the scripture,
‘a woman is inferior to her husband in all things.’” No such verse exists in
the Old Testament! As a priest Josephus should have known better, but doesn’t
this superbly illustrate how rooted the dogma was?
Women
naturally learnt the rudiments of the Torah in synagogue, and some rabbis’
wives were learned, but other rabbis considered it wrong to allow women to
study because they might learn proficient legalism and so avoid punishment for
immorality, which they could be automatically assumed to be right up for at the
drop of a hat. Some rabbis would not answer a question from a woman; they
should be at home spinning, not bothering their heads with what was a man’s
business. Domestic work in fact officially took priority over many religious
observances.
A woman could be divorced outright for
speaking to a man on the street; in a town she should be chaperoned by two men,
on the road by three. Rabbis taught that a man should talk to no woman but his
wife and to his own as little as possible! Taking pleasure in the society of
women would lead a man inevitably into immorality and of course women were
inherently immoral to begin with. Some Pharisees acquired the nickname “bruised
and bleeding Pharisees” because they frequently walked into walls after
shutting their eyes when a woman came into view!
Into this depressing society of
invisible, unheard and belittled women burst Jesus, with all the subtlety of a
bomb in an ammo dump! He heedlessly rode roughshod over genteel sensibilities,
and frequently appeared outrageous and indecent. Take the Mark and Martha
story. It sounds innocuous, “Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to
his teaching” (Luke 10:39). In reality she was behaving in a shocking way,
adopting a male role, that of a disciple to a rabbi – look how the phrase “at
the feet of” is used in Acts 22:3! Martha, dutifully and properly being
house-proud, clucks with annoyance; Mary should be in the kitchen. Jesus in
effect tells her to quickly make beans on toast and to join them for the
important stuff that was her spiritual right also.
Luke
8:1-3 lists “many” women who went about with Jesus supporting him. And only
they, with the exception of John, followed him to the cross. These were
outrageous women; they should have been at home, either being domestic, or in
the case of Mary Magdalene, apologising for existing. Jewish mores dictated
that wives should not leave the front door, and unwed girls should not show
themselves that far! Thus Jesus rebelled against the prevailing standards and
attitudes and encouraged women to do the same. This was just not how a rabbi behaved!
The
conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 is a superb example. He teaches
deep religious truths to a serial divorcee, co-habiting Samaritan woman, alone
outside a town. I make that seven points of offence! John 4:27 tells us of the
disciples’ bafflement; the sight that met their eyes could only be understood
as a depraved man soliciting a depraved woman; they knew this couldn’t be what
Jesus was doing but they had no alternative explanation of what he was up to!
She then went into the town and taught their neighbours. In similar vein in
Matthew 28 Jesus and the angels not only first appeared to the women but told
them to go and witness to the men! And this in a society that regarded women as
unreliable witnesses[1]
(a fact which must have kept conviction for rape extremely low.)
Jesus
also would not tolerate the chauvinistic attitude that women were inherently
outrageously lustful. Religious authorities spoke in this way not because women
regularly made passes at rabbis but because on seeing women they had immoral
thoughts, as they believed themselves to be purer than pure they could not be
the origin of such fantasies, so the women must be transmitting their
overflowing lust! This attitude meant that only women were stoned for adultery
by the time of Christ;[2] it must be all their fault – see John 8! Psychologists call this “projection”. Jesus
on the contrary taught that men must exercise self-control and take
responsibility for themselves (Matthew 5: 28-29). Take this to heart, brother!
In
our next article I shall discuss the many scriptures showing women behaving
actively, vocally and playing a leading role alongside men in the early
congregations, in the light of the views in the Roman world. Then, God Willing,
I shall consider the facts of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and 1 Timothy 2, and see
if the orthodox approach to these passages holds water. Then, if not too badly
stoned or burnt, I shall conclude with a “So what?” type article, for this is a
most exciting and challenging time for our Brotherhood.
TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON THE ROLE OF
WOMEN IN CHRIST
PART 2: NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES
On
the day of Pentecost the gospel of the risen Christ erupted into the heart of
Judaism, as scores of believing men and women preached in public to the festive
crowds, facilitated by the miraculous gift of tongues.
Yes;
women preached publicly, as Acts 2 states:
“all” received the Holy Spirit, “all” spoke in tongues, and as Peter
explained, this fulfilled the prophet Joel: “… my Spirit on all flesh… your
sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophecy… my Spirit on my slaves and SLAVE-GIRLS, and
they shall prophecy.” (Acts 2:17-18, Interlinear Bible)
Paul
in 1 Corinthians 14:5 teaches a consistent message: “And I wish all of you to
speak in languages, but rather that you may prophesy.” (Interlinear Bible) Again in Acts, Philip the Deacon’s four
unmarried (!) daughters prophesied, (Acts
21:8-9.) And though I shall deal
with 1 Corinthians 11 in more depth in a future article, it refers to women
praying and prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5).
To prophesy is to speak God’s words aloud in public, or to lead the
congregation in song (e.g. 1 Chronicles 25:1). Since the prophesying is aloud
before the congregation, we assume the praying is too. There is no suggestion
that “praying” or “prophesying” means one thing for a man but another thing
when a woman is doing it.
Women
clearly took a prominent role in the managing of congregations and the
preaching of the gospel. We read of “Chloe’s people” in 1 Corinthians 1:11,
“Nympha and the Church in her house” in Colossians 4:15, a similar arrangement
seems to be implied for Lydia
Deaconesses.
The younger Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan as governor of Bithynia
In
our previous article we discussed the restrictions on Jewish women. In Gentile
culture a woman was expected to follow her husband’s religion of choice or at
least not engage in a religion of which he disapproved. Education for women was
not unknown, but attitudes toward it were similar to those in Judaism, as we
considered previously! I will discuss 1 Timothy 2:11 in more depth in my next article,
but for now let us note that it indicates that “a woman should learn.
The
orthodox position promoting a severely restricted role for sisters always
justifies its interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and 1 Timothy 2 by
reference to Old Testament passages. I find it enormously interesting that when
faced with the “Judaising Heresy” in Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem
The
orthodox response to this passage is that it relates only to “salvation”, or to
how things will be in the Kingdom. But this statement is clearly a response to
the Jewish benediction:
Blessed be he who did not make me a
Gentile;
Blessed be he who did not make me a
woman;
Blessed be he who did not make me a
slave.
Steve
Cooper, a friend of mine, tells me that he first read these words in a
prayer-book in a Jerusalem
This
interpretation I will now subject to critical scrutiny, to see if any real
scriptural objection exists to prevent sisters praying, reading, preaching and
teaching in our meetings. In my next article I will discuss the text of 1
Timothy 2:11-15 in the light of what is now known about the “Gnostic Heresy”.
TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON THE ROLE OF
WOMEN IN CHRIST
PART 3: PAUL, TIMOTHY, THE GNOSTICS — AND
WOMEN
As
predicted by Jesus and Paul, the “falling away” or apostasy of sections of the
early Christians from the true Gospel was swift. The most “successful” such
apostasy was that beginning with the division of “clergy” and “laity” and
culminating with the imposition of “Catholic Christianity” as the state
religion of Rome
Gnosticism[5]
(Noss-Tee-Sizzum) was if anything, older and even more perverted and very long
lasting, thriving until violently suppressed and driven underground by the
power of the State
Church
·
That which is physical is evil; spirit is
good.
·
Salvation was by your pure spirit
escaping your vile body and ascending to heaven. The means of such escape was
special knowledge, “gnosis” in Greek, hence Gnosticism.
·
The Old Testament God had created the
evil physical world. Hence he himself was evil and a deceiver.
·
The body was evil and to be treated
harshly by fasting etc. But sexual immorality was fine because it broke the law
of the evil creator; marriage however was forbidden.
·
Creating more vile flesh by having
children was evil. Women who gave birth would be hindered from entering Gnostic
heaven.
·
Eve was worshipped as a perfect spirit
being, Adam’s creator and united with the Serpent, the enlightener of mankind
with the True Knowledge.
·
Knowledge of your origins via your family
tree was important to salvation; Eve was the origin of all.
·
Christ being perfect did not have a
physical body, he only appeared to.
·
Gnostic myths were generally perverted
versions of O.T. stories.
1
John 4:2-3 is a prime example of a verse countering the Gnostic heresy and
Christadelphians universally recognise it as such:
“Every
spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the
spirit of the Antichrist.”
This
clearly refers to the Gnostic heresy of the Christ with no physical body. We
suggest that the letters to Timothy are equally preoccupied with the Gnostic
threat.
Consider:
1 Timothy 1:4 makes it plain that Timothy’s congregation at Ephesus
Gnostic mythology turned scripture on its
head. Cain was a hero and Abel a knave. Eve and the Serpent brought salvation;
you should oppose the evil Creator at every turn. If he said “thou shalt not”,
thou jolly well shalt. Gnosticism was a
religion of revolt against every divine principle. Here too is the Gnostic
obsession with genealogy. Not surprisingly Paul has a great many other
concerns:
“They forbid people to marry and order them to
abstain from certain foods…” (1 Tim 4:3 NIV)
Here
is Gnostic revulsion from maintaining vile flesh in both its main forms!
Further:
“Have nothing to do with godless myths and old
wives’ tales.” (1 Tim 4:7 NIV) These
“old wives’ tales” were the secret lore of Gnosticism, often taught to
impressionable children and young wives by the older women.
“…rather train yourself to be godly. For
physical training is of some value, but godliness has value … for the present
life and the life to come.” (1 Tim 4:8) Gnosticism taught the opposite; your
spirit is already perfect, it only requires you to suppress your flesh by harsh
ascetic practices.
These
passages are but small fry compared to the core Gnosticism passage of 1 Timothy
2:11-15
“A woman should learn in silence and full
submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to 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. But women
will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness
with propriety.”
Already,
in the light of our comments on Gnostic teaching, this passage should be
reading rather differently from the orthodox slant! Usually these verses are
quoted to “prove” that women must never speak “in ecclesia”. Good
Christadelphian practice is being ignored:
“Any
doctrine must be suspect when it rests on only one verse. Much more so when the
interpretation . . . violates the teaching
of scripture” [6].
Bro.
Ron’s principle is a Christadelphian tradition of pure solid gold. There are
four verses in the entire Bible which are taken to teach that women cannot
speak and teach and the equivalent of a couple of chapters’ worth saying that women
did and should pray, speak, teach and lead. Common sense and Christadelphian
tradition say “Go with the majority of passages and doubt the face-value
meaning of the minority”. Why is this sound principle driven away with blows
over this issue, but sanely upheld in almost all others?
So
what is this silence Paul speaks of? Look at the preceding passage:
“For
there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself as a ransom for all men. …
I am telling the truth, I am not lying.”
(1
Tim 2: 5-7)
1
Timothy 2 begins with a request for prayers to be made for everyone, which
suggests that some groups in the congregation were not being prayed for. Then
Paul underlines Christ’s mediatorship “for all”, not just for some factions of
the congregation. What other mediators were competing with Christ in Timothy’s Ephesus Ephesus
“A woman should learn in quietness and full
submission …” (1 Timothy 2:11)
This
contrasts with the foolish women referred to in 2 Timothy 3:6-7 who are “always
learning but never able to acknowledge the truth”. Note also the change from
‘women’ in 1 Tim 2:9-10 to ‘she’ in verses 11-12; there it appears husband and
wife is being referred to for the following reasons:
Why
make the change from plural to singular? The Greek words gyne and aner used here
can be translated respectively wife/woman or husband/man depending purely on
context. The use of the word ‘submission’ is probably contextual with Paul’s
use of the same word.
In
his previous letter to the same congregation – the Epistle of the Ephesians –
in Ephesians 5:22 Paul says, “wives submit to your husbands”.
The
reference to Adam and Eve in verse 14 – the first husband and wife – and the
reference to childbearing in verse 15 also point to a context of marriage.
So
this silence and submission is restricted to the special role of husband and
wife that the scripture DOES teach, the “great mystery” of Ephesians 5:32; if
it applies to every brother with every sister, what is special about marriage –
bed and board? In 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul says that a woman (wife?) is not to have
“authority” or authentein over a man
(her husband?) When we want to understand the meaning of a scriptural word, we
generally look at how the scriptures elsewhere use it; we can’t do this with authentein because this is its one and
only appearance! Koine (Oxford
*
“Precedence (coming first)”; this ties in with the Gnostic doctrine of Eve
creating Adam
*
“domineering, usurping authority” like that of the Gnostic teachers.
*
“To murder a wife and take her place” Again, extreme usurpation and violence!
Most
of these meanings are about the abuse of power; I am certainly against that.
The following translation is a perfectly permissible translation of the Greek
text, and best suits the Gnostic context:
“I
do not permit (such) a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the
originator of man; she is to be in conformity (to the scripture teaching) for
Adam was created first, not Eve…” [8]
‘Silence’
in verss 12 does NOT mean ‘silence’; it is the Greek word hesychia, which carries the idea of ‘quietness’ – being less loud.
If Paul meant for a woman not to speak he would have used sigan which does mean “to refrain from speaking”. This fits our
context; a woman should co-operate with sound instruction, and not be
boisterous and rebellious like a Gnostic virago! (Oxford
A
woman who does not peddle Gnostic rubbish but who holds sound doctrine should teach and can hold proper authority, in line with Paul’s teaching elsewhere!
Eve was deceived and a sinner, not enlightened and perfect like the Gnostics
taught! This is far removed from saying because Eve sinned all women are unfit
to speak or lead.
The
clincher is verse 15, because out of the Gnostic context it makes no obvious
sense at all; is it saying good girls don’t die in childbirth (they do) or that
they are saved by having children? Paul was denying the Gnostic doctrine that
having children would hinder a woman’s salvation. Paul teaches that salvation
depends on Christian conduct, not on whether or not you make babies!
In
short, 1 Timothy 2 is saying not that women should not teach, but that they
should teach what is right, and not that they should not exercise authority, but
that they should exercise it properly. So should men! This is in perfect
conformity with the rest of the New Testament: mutual submission on the part of
all. The final proof for this context is 1 Timothy 6:20:
“Turn
away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called
knowledge, (A.V = “science”) which some have professed and in so doing have
wandered from the faith.”
The
word “knowledge” there is, you’ve guessed it, Strong’s 1108: GNOSIS. Could Paul
be more plain?
In
our next article we shall consider 1 Corinthians 11: the “head covering/hat”
passage.
TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON THE ROLE OF
WOMEN IN CHRIST
PART 4: 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11
“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her
head uncovered dishonours her head”. (1 Corinthians 11:5 NIV) How often
this verse is quoted as absolute proof that a hat/veil must be worn? Sometimes
with the added comment that “it’s black and white” “how clear do you want it”?
When some one says that, I think to myself this person could not have looked at
the chapter in any detail. Of those authors who are traditional, Bro. Michael
Lewis, in his book “Man and Woman” is the most realistic about 1 Corinthians
chapter 11. On page 93 he says this:
“This must be one of the most difficult
sections in the New Testament, not helped by the absence of parallel passages
on the subject”.
How
right he is and how black and white it is not.
Here
are some of the difficulties concerning this passage, which make ANY
understanding of this passage uncertain:
A.
Paul taught that our new life in Christ is not about following rituals and
regulations:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us
free, stand firm then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery” (Gal 5:1 NIV)
If
no head coverings for a man and head coverings for a woman is a basic
principle. Then, like all other basic principles, you would expect it to be
taught in other passages. But THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE – elsewhere you find
ritual practices criticised and a stress on spiritual worship.
B.
In the Old Testament the Levite priests wore a head covering with God’s
blessing. This appears to contradict 1 Corinthians 11:7 “A man ought not to
cover his head”!
Some
will say, “That was the Old Testament, this is the New Testament things have
changed.” But where is the evidence of the “change” on head coverings from Old
to New Testament? There is no other passage in the N.T. on this subject. And
furthermore 1 Corinthians 11 uses O.T. references in the verse following and
again in verse 12 – of Adam and Eve!
C.
The Nazirite vow allowed men to grow their hair long. And Paul himself took a
Nazirite vow; but then Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:14: “If a man has long
hair, it is a disgrace to him”!
My
personal view on this verse is that the “disgrace” was suggesting homosexuality
in the Corinthian culture; and it must have been a big issue then. Today the
approximate equivalent of long hair for homosexuals can be short hair!
D.
Some translators use the word “veil”, but the word “veil” never occurs in the
original Greek (and neither does ‘hat’ or any other external covering!) and the
NIV acknowledges this problem, and translates 1 Cor. 11: 4-7 (NIV margin) with
the hair as the covering for both men and women. My personal opinion is that
the hair is the covering. After all hair is named or effectively referred to
six times in this passage. And verse 15 says “long HAIR is given to her as a
COVERING”.
E.
The RSV translates verse 3 as “husband” and “wife” rather than “man” and
“woman” because the context alone determines how to translate these words. The
context puts the man and woman in the singular throughout this passage, and
further refers to Adam and Eve – the first couple; “husband” and “wife” makes
the most sense. Nowhere else does the N.T. teach that brothers are the head of
the sisters. Only that the husband is the head of the wife – as in Ephesians
5:23.
F.
Elsewhere in the N.T. Christ is the head of the church i.e. of both brothers
and sisters; not just of men. Some have said that Christ is not the head of the
wife directly, but only through the husband!
G.
According to verse 7 only man (masculine) is the image of God: but Genesis
1:26-27 says that “man” (male and female) is created in the image of God.
H.
“Authority” in verse 10 is elsewhere translated as that person concerned having
authority to do something themselves. For example: 1 Cor 7:37 and 8:9 – here it
means the right or liberty to do something. Therefore it seems likely that she
has “authority” to decide for her self, rather than she being under any (man’s)
“authority”.
I. Although the first half of 1 Corinthians 11
presents the woman/wife as subordinate, verse 11 seems to develop it to a more
equal partnership: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man nor
is man independent of a woman”.
J. “Because of the Angels” (1 Corinthians
11:10) is an obscure phrase, and it is very difficult to even guess what it
might mean. I could give five different explanations of this phrase (and there
are no doubt more than five.) None of them is supported by much, if any
evidence.
K.
Verse 14 says that “nature” teaches that long hair is a disgrace for a man. How
does nature teach this? Does a man’s hair naturally grow shorter than a
woman’s? What a(nother) strange verse!
Does
the reader think this passage is “simple” and “black and white”? Have you got
“straightforward” answers to 1 Corinthians 11 when experts on the Greek text
struggle with it? Let us face the
obvious, it is an obscure passage – and that is why views are NOT the same,
amongst various Christadelphian writers.[9]
There are a few things you CAN be dogmatic with 1 Corinthians 11:
·
We do not
KNOW what the covering is; it might be a veil or hair, or a hairstyle.
·
Women were
praying and prophesying in the Corinthian ecclesia.
·
There are several very strange verses in
this passage, such as “because of the angels”, which are totally perplexing.
·
This is the only passage in the whole
Bible on the subject, and is a very difficult passage to understand.
·
It
is often asked why bring up such a controversial subject? One of my answers is
that sisters (and brothers) are leaving our community partly because of the
unscriptural, chauvinistic attitudes shown by some brothers (and sisters!). And hats are often the vehicle through which
this Victorian chauvinism is expressed. Sometimes spiritual blackmail is used,
by suggesting that her salvation is at risk by not wearing a hat – what
nonsense!
·
My second reason is that as 1 Corinthians
11 is so very difficult to understand, it is purely down to conscience as to
what to do, about hats. As the Bible says, if it is wrong to you, then it is
sin – so do not do it. And equally if it is wrong not to wear hats – to you –
then wear a hat. Let’s respect each other’s view and let each other be. But
sisters are barred from most ecclesias if they do not wear a hat – even though
they don’t see it as sin. I know personally of some sisters who have been
threatened with disfellowship over this issue – and others who have left our
community altogether.
My
final reason for raising this issue is equally, if not more, worrying. In
Brother Jim Bilton’s talk at Hoddesdon in 1998 on “The Mission Statement”, he
pointed out that national polls on Christianity showed that people saw the way in which Christianity is often
preached as “irrelevant”. Insisting on every
woman wearing a hat when the evidence is highly dubious, is an example of
this irrelevance. Let us stick to things we can
be dogmatic about, the positives of
loving God and loving our neighbours – and our neighbour equally includes women
as well as men!
In
my final article I will ask, “So What Now?”
TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON THE ROLE OF
WOMEN IN CHRIST
PART 5: 1 CORINTHIANS 14
There
are two verses in 1 Corinthians 14 that appear to prohibit women speaking in
the church:
“Women
should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must
be in submission, as the law says. If they want to enquire about something,
they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman
to speak in the church.” (1
Corinthians 14:34-35 NIV)
The
context begins in 1 Corinthians 12, “Now about spiritual gifts, brothers”
(verse 1). Paul is taking up a specific question asked by the church and
answering it. Verse 13 makes it clear that both men and women are being
addressed: “ALL baptised…ALL given the
one spirit to drink.” Furthermore, “brothers” in verse one is “adelphoi” in the Greek and is the
equivalent to “brothers and sisters” in English. Therefore the gifts of
“knowledge”, “faith”, “healing”,
“prophecy” and “tongues” applied to both men and women. This should not
be a big surprise in view of the scriptures we addressed in Part 2!
1
Corinthians 13 emphasises the importance of love; and 1 Corinthians 14 begins
by asking for a loving, considerate attitude towards having spiritual gifts. In
this chapter, as before, men and women are being addressed. “Brothers” in verse
six, and throughout this chapter is the Greek word “adelphoi”,
the same as in chapter 12 verse one. So the women too are involved in prophecy
(verse 1):
“…Who
prophesies edifies the church…” (verse 4)
In
tongues: (verse 2)
“…Who
speaks in a tongue…”
The
context clearly shows that this was no private occasion but a meeting of the
ecclesia:
“…If
the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues…” (verse 23)
Verse
26 follows in the same vein:
“Everyone
has a hymn, or a word of instruction [teaching!], a revelation, a tongue…”
“Everyone”
covers women, who were teaching in the church. But there was a condition:
“…must
be done for the strengthening of the church…” (verse 26)
The
whole passage is asking for an orderly service that can be understood. Paul did
not want disorder and so asked “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the
most three – should speak, and someone must interpret…”
If
there is no interpreter the speaker should keep “quiet”, (verses 27-28) and as
we discussed in part 3, this is the word sigan
which means to be “silent”, i.e. to make no sound. In a similar way the
prophets are to be orderly, and sometimes to be silent, for:
“If
a revelation should come to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker
should stop…” (verse 30)
The
“stop” is sigan “to be silent”. In
other words, if everyone is talking at once, some need to shut up! The context
is pretty clear that this was not a general and permanent silence for all time
on those men and women who spoke in tongues and prophesied. Verse 33 gives a
strong hint that it is the disorderly women that are being addressed:
“…
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace…”
Paul
asks these women to sigan, “be
silent”; there are three more clues that these are women with a bad attitude;
“…But
must be in submission as the law says…”
“…If
they want to enquire about something then they should ask their husbands at
home…”
“…It
is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church…”
So
this applies not to all women but to wives; not to all wives, but to those who
are relatively immature in the Truth; and the contingency is disruption of
ecclesial activity. These women were not submitting to their husbands or to
general sensibilities; they were arrogant. They were speaking inappropriately
when others were speaking, just like the prophets in verse 30. Perhaps they
were loudly blurting out questions, probably on basic issues, disrupting the
service. They may have been young wives (Romans and Jews often took brides aged
as young as twelve) possessed of the teenage “sillies” or older women denied
education and intellectual stimulus, (remember some wives converted their
husbands and so would have more knowledge than them!) But men and women
possessed of spiritual depth should
minister;
“Therefore
my brothers (ADELPHOI) be eager to prophecy and DO NOT FORBID speaking in
tongues…” (verse 39)
So
in general men and women should NOT be silent; they should contribute. 1
Corinthians 14 is not part of some involved special role for women, but simply
a common sense demand for consideration and responsibility. One final point to
think over; all ancient manuscripts of this passage have the same wording, but
in some, vv. 34-35 are placed after v. 40. Possibly this was a comment by Paul,
or a marginal note by an early copyist inserted into the passage, any thoughts?
TURNING THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON THE ROLE OF
WOMEN IN CHRIST
PART 6: SO WHAT NOW?
Thank
you for staying with this series for five whole articles; let us recap on their
conclusions:
Part
1: We showed that Jesus was born into a society that restricted women severely,
yet our Lord flouted convention and encouraged women to adopt formerly “men
only” roles.
Part
2: We showed a selection of the scriptural evidence for equality of the women
in the early congregations; preaching, teaching, exercising spirit gifts,
leading etc; also in contravention of prevailing mores.
Part
3: We suggested that 1 Timothy is devoted to opposing the Gnostic heresy, and
that 1 Tim. 2:11-15 relates to this issue and to this issue only; a general
principle is that teachers should teach scriptural doctrine, whether men or
women.
Part
4: We showed that the “hat” passage of 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the most
problematic in scripture, that the orthodox approach does not hold water, and
that the passage refers to women who are praying and prophesying aloud, not to
women sitting passively in “formal” meetings.
Part
5: We showed that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that both brothers and sisters
address the meeting. And that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 only has a restriction on disruptive
and inappropriate contributions from certain women.
This
series has not been an exhaustive treatment of the subject; it has merely
outlined some of the key arguments. The reader is exhorted to compare these
arguments with those of the orthodox approach: Which conform to the meaning of
the text, the immediate context of the passage, the broader context of
scripture and the context of the first century?
Some
claim that the orthodox approach promotes unity among believers, but that a
series like this threatens to disrupt. This is a myth; there is no unity as
things are. Some unquestionably argue for a restricted “special” role for women
because they are morally, spiritually and mentally inferior to men and unfit to
play an active role; others argue that women are perfectly equal and capable,
they are only restricted because God wants ritual role-play. Space doesn’t
allow consideration here for the range of incompatible ideas used to justify
hat-wearing from 1 Corinthians 11; we can only recommend reading the appendices
to the McHaffies’ First Corinthians
11:2-16 (listed in the bibliography).
If
we are the probationary betrothed of Christ, formerly “aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel” but now awaiting the marriage supper of the Lamb
(Ephesians 2:12) then surely in the light of the symbolism of Deuteronomy 21:12
every sister should be shaved if she is to represent “the Bride”! And if every
brother represents “the Bridegroom”, then nothing could be more appropriate
than for him to wear a fancy head-dress as described in the Hebrew of Isaiah
61:10? We can pluck out obscure O.T. imagery to make a case for virtually any
practice – if we believe that that is the approach God requires. Yet why are
we so content to ignore clear scripture commandments like the anointing of the
sick enjoined in James 5:14-15? Let’s have a few enlightening quotes from
Victorian days:
“…I
was also introduced to sister Dexter, whose characteristics are described in
many a Scripture specification of womanly excellence, and whose serving
capacities are so highly appreciated that she has been appointed ‘a managing
brother!’ Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, was an excellent managing brother, to
whom Barak naturally took the second place.”
A
VOYAGE TO AUSTRALIA
“…I
do not see how that little ecclesia ever could have lived had the sisters not
taken an active part in the worship. … Those eight, each and everyone, took a
part in the meeting, and I have never since seen such zeal, enthusiasm, and
devotion. One brother read the lesson, a second prayed, a third took charge of
the table, and a fourth led in singing. One sister read from the Christadelphian; second, the thoughts
she had noted down during the week, when reading her daily lessons; third,
selection of hymn; and fourth, she always did the same thing—read a few verses
from the Bible.”
From
an article in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN MAGAZINE, July 1st 1883, page 315!
In
several meetings in this country sisters have given Bible classes from the
beginning of the last century. This scotches the oft-repeated idea that those
promoting an active role for sisters are conforming to worldly feminist values;
Edwardian England was not noted for its “political correctness!” During the
time of the division of the Central and Suffolk Street Suffolk Street
All
our conclusions in the series are compatible with one broad point; each husband
and wife unit represents Christ and his bride in symbol. And the ecclesia as a
whole, both brothers and sisters, represents the bride. Every woman in the
ecclesia is not under the authority of every man (Eph 5:32). Paul teaches that
as a wife exercises her right to an active role in the Congregation, she should
not undermine her husband. Likewise the husband must not undermine his wife. In
fact everyone must submit to everyone else! (Ephesians 5:21)
Freedom
in Christ means we have to develop and exercise our consciences; the effort
this requires provokes people to bind themselves with man-made rules, for
freedom is a fearful thing. Look at the legalism the orthodox approach
generates; we have unscriptural hair-splitting definitions of “formal” and
“informal” meetings, brethren listening to sisters’ classes over the sound
system in adjoining rooms because the sisters would have to be dumb in their
actual presence, some meetings allowing sisters to speak in business meetings,
others to only pass notes, while apparently many non-Christadelphian churches
in the States deny women any vote in Church affairs! Other meetings order
un-baptised girls to wear hats, surely making a mockery of the whole idea! If
an interpretation needs such legalism to make it function, isn’t that another
sign that it’s wrong?
The
restriction of sisters in our community is destroying us. Many sisters (and
brothers) are either disaffected or dropping out of our community altogether.
Many women are turned away from Christianity because of the perception that
Paul was anti-women. If God really wants ritual
role-play then that’s a price we would have to pay. (We could have greater
appeal if we changed our stance on all sorts of things!) But as he doesn’t, we
mustn’t.
So
how could we have got this so wrong for so long? The problem began when the
Apostacy set in, first with the division of the Church into “clergy” and
“laity”, then with the false doctrine that the clergy represented and mediated
Christ to the congregation – and so had to be male. Translations have been made
for centuries with these assumptions. We denounce the clergy/laity distinction
but keep the male/female one in place! The Church’s suppression of Gnosticism
also meant that the context of 1 Timothy was lost, with many important facts only
discovered in recent decades. And in our own community, the attitude that women
who want to do more aren’t “nice” or “feminine” and the savage treatment of
those few who have stuck their necks out have splendidly stifled the debate.
But now the genie is out of the bottle. More and more meetings and gatherings
are taking the step of allowing sisters their scriptural role.
When you first encounter sisters praying,
speaking, presiding and reading, it is a terrible shock to the system. We have
been so strongly conditioned to believe that it’s blasphemy! But you quickly
come to appreciate the different kinds of spiritual insights women have, the
quite different quality of their prayers, and the fellowship and decent order
that prevails in the meetings where this takes place. Particularly fitting is
the leading of a service by husband and wife in partnership! Make no mistake;
this issue will generate a terrible lot of heat before it generates any light,
but the light will be worth the trial. Open your hearts and minds, brothers and
sisters, fearlessly weigh the evidence – and decide for yourselves. Do nothing
either one way or another out of conformity, but obey your conviction. Respect
weak faith, but seek to strengthen it! To go against your conscience is sin.
And remember that we really are a family in the Lord, for then confronting
contentious issues like this will make us only stronger. But if we keep on
replacing brotherly kindness with bureaucracy, it will destroy us.
Bibliography
Wrested Scriptures, Ron Abel
Living
In the Time of Jesus of Nazareth
I
Suffer not a Woman – Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, 1992
All
One In Christ – Bible Teaching on the work of Brothers and Sisters in the
Ecclesia, Ian & Averil McHaffie
1
Corinthians 11:2-16 – Headcovering in Bible Times and the Application Today, Ian & Averil McHaffie
The
Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels
[1] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, 4:219
[2] Living In the Time of
Jesus of Nazareth, Peter Connolly, 1983, page 54
[3] Jewish New Testament
Commentary, David Stern, 1992, page 439
[4] The Letters of the
Younger Pliny, book ten, letter 96, page 294, translator Betty Radice,
Penguin Classics
[6] Wrested Scriptures, Ron Abel, page 38
[7] I Suffer not a Woman –
Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine
Clark Kroeger, 1992, page 71 (This is devoted to explaining the Gnostic heresy
with special reference to 1 Timothy 2.
Believe me, we’ve only scratched the surface!)
[8] Added footnote: It is worth commenting, 15 years after the
appearance of the Kroegers’ book, that debate continues on how authentein should be translated, and the
Kroegers’ suggested translation of authentein
as “to represent herself as the originator of man” has not been widely
accepted. Nevertheless, the Kroeger book presents much relevant detail to the
background of 1 Timothy and the heresies in Ephesus
[9] See 1 Corinthians
11:2-16 – Headcovering in Bible Times and the Application Today, Ian &
Averil McHaffie
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not comment as 'Anonymous'. Rather, choose 'Name/URL' and use a fake name. The URL can be left blank. This makes it easier to see who is replying to whom.