Click Here for the Latest Edition of the Auburn Beacon

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

The Beacon is sent weekly

Planning to Visit Us?

What to Expect
Current Class Information

You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Evangelist

Cell:    (334) 734-2133
Home: (334) 209-9165

Contact Us

 University
church of Christ

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830

Or directly e-mail us at:
LarryRouse@aubeacon.com

Creation or Culture?

by Gardner Hall

What is the basis for Biblical teaching about different roles for men and women?

Brief review of notes by Thomas Robinson on the role of women in the churches

I've just briefly looked over a Spanish translation of a lengthy study by Thomas Robinson, preacher at the Manhattan church of Christ, on the role of women in the churches. I would like to thank him for his research and thoughtful comments. The translator also did and excellent job. Though I've just met him briefly, I respect him for the impressive work he has done with this study. In spite of my admiration for the scope of brother Robinson's study and agreement with much of what he says, I believe he is wrong in his conclusion. Therefore I am writing this quick and brief review. Please excuse typographical and grammatical errors as it will be photocopied without much proofreading.

Different roles for men and women, a matter of culture or creation?

I believe brother Robinson's basic error is his belief that the teaching about different roles for men and women in the New Testament is based on culture, while the scriptures teach that it is based on God's creation.

While it is true that it is necessary to take culture into consideration as we interpret the Bible, especially regarding Mosaic laws, the book of Revelation and some New Testament practices, we must be careful not to quickly ascribe a motive of "culture" to New Testament ordinances, in effect, undermining their modern relevance. This opens a Pandora's box for questions about the relevancy of other New Testament practices such as baptism and the Lord's Supper. Modernists already dismiss such practices as vestiges of Jewish culture.

That Paul is concerned about God's order of creation and not mere temporary custom in talking about different roles for men and women is obvious from his words. Both in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, Paul never appeals to Roman or Greek cultural sensibilities as the basis of his reasoning (as brother Robinson assumes), but instead he appeals primarily to God's creation and the order he set up from the beginning.

* 1 Corinthians 11:3, 9.

"But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man; and the head of Christ is God." "Nor was the man created for the woman, but woman for the man."

There's nothing here about Greek or Roman culture as a basis for Paul's teaching about different roles for men and women, but there is an appeal to God's order as set at creation.

Though Paul gives additional reasons for his teaching on differences between men and women, the basic foundation of it is creation, not culture. More on this text later.

* 1 Timothy 2:13 appeals to creation, not culture, as the basis of the teaching in verses 11 and 12. Brother Robinson tries to evade this point by stating that Paul was simply painting and analogy between the rebelliousness of the Ephesian women (something he assumes) and Eve. However the use of the word "for" ("gar") at the beginning of verse 13 shows that Paul is not talking of God's created order just to chide Ephesian women and compare them with Eve, but rather he is giving the basis for his inspired commandment. It is based on creation not culture.

* Though Paul doesn't specifically mention creation in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, he does mention the law, not the prevailing Greco-Roman culture.

Subjection implies inferiority?

A secondary and almost equally harmful misconception needs to be addressed. Brother Robinson seems to feel that acknowledgment of different roles implies an under appreciation of woman's importance and her gifts. He points out with some justification that some have argued for different roles for men and women by talking of her "credulity, lack of intellect, carnality, excessive emotionalism and other characteristics." I think he feels that acknowledging that men and women have different roles and that the woman should be submissive in the home and church, would imply acceptance of that false line of reasoning.

On the contrary, the Bible speaks of the superiority of subjection and service. Jesus washed the disciple's feet to show true greatness. He subjects himself to the father, though in no way inferior to Him (1 Corinthians 15:28). For this reason God has so highly treasured the influence of godly women throughout history as brother Robinson so effectively has shown in his analysis of Biblical women. They were cherished, however, not because they took positions of authority over men, but because they often understood better than most men the nature of true spiritual greatness: humility, service, subjection. It has been correctly said that women have had the great civilizing influence on all cultures. We need to avoid contamination with concepts that come from modern trends and the women's liberation movement as to what constitutes true spiritual greatness.

Though equally important in God's eyes, men and women are created differently, both physically and emotionally. Just as there are different physical roles from the time of creation (giving birth on the part of women, physical strength for men for defense, etc.), so also there are different spiritual roles. The roles for women are no less important than those of men, but they are different.

Brother Robinson writes at length about avoiding offense to people of the world by limiting the public role of women. While certainly we should avoid unnecessary offense, the whole gospel was quite offensive to the Greeks and Romans (1 Corinthians 1, 2). However, to change principles that God has laid down from creation simply to accommodate modern trends and fads is completely foreign to the scriptures.

Clarifying the issue

Before the brief review we should clarify what the basic disagreement involves and does not involve.

(1) It does not involve whether women are equal in God's eyes to men. They are (Galatians 3:27, etc.). It does involve whether they have been given different roles in the family and church just as they obviously have different physical roles.

(2) It does not involve whether women have taught or prophesied through the years under certain circumstances. They have with God's approval on numerous occasions (Acts 21; 1 Cor. 11:5, Acts 2, etc.). It does involve whether they can teach or prophesy by giving discourses when the whole church is come together (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) or when they would be taking a position of authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:11, 12).

Reviewing first pages

I have little complaint with the first pages of the study. Yes, certain Mosaic laws need to be understood in light of the prevailing culture of the time. However, we must remind ourselves that the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 is not based on culture, but creation.

Brother Robinson's summary of the importance God gave to holy women is exceptionally good. However, we must remind ourselves that all the women mentioned were praised by God and accomplished the great good that they accomplished, not by taking charge of men or putting themselves in a position of authority over them, but on the contrary, by leading through humble, submissive service. They taught men through their examples and quiet words what true greatness was all about!

1 Corinthians 7

I have at least one slight disagreement with brother Robinson's analysis of 1 Corinthians 7 that really doesn't have much to do with the role of women. From 2 Thessalonians 2, I don't think Paul felt Christ's second return was imminent. I think the distress he had in mind (vs. 26) concerned the persecution of the church.

1 Corinthians 11

Brother Robinson has a commonly held misconception that Paul was correcting the Corinthians for violating the culture of the day in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. However, Paul plainly says in verse 2, "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." Only when he arrives at verse 17 to discuss the Lord's supper does his tone change as he says, "now in giving these instructions I do not praise you..." The Corinthians were obeying Paul's instructions about the head covering! They just wanted some more reasoning as to why they should wear it (or not wear it in the case of the man) and thus Paul gives them those reasons in verses 2-16.

I think brother Robinson’s strongest point is verse 5 and 6 because it is obvious that both men and women were praying and prophesying. However, I think he is wrong in assuming that women were praying and prophesying from a position of authority over the man or by giving discourses to the entire congregation. Much of his theory is based on this assumption, not proof.

It is difficult to ascertain exactly when the praying and prophesying were taking place in 1 Corinthians 11. Brother Robinson makes some debatable points to indicate that perhaps the assembly of the saints was the primary circumstance under consideration. Even if this were provable (and commentators disagree), I am certain that women could teach and pray when Christians assemble without taking the pulpit or a position of authority much as women today do in teaching classes, praying aside with other women, being led in prayer, etc.

Suppose a principal called all the athletes of the school, male and female, and told them, "whenever you are representing our school you must wear the school uniform." That type of instruction would not imply that all athletes were performing in the same venues and in the same sports. Those on the swim team would not be playing football, the golf team would not be playing basketball, etc. In the same way, the fact that instructions are given in the same context to men and women who prophesy does not prove that they would have done so in identical settings. On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 indicate the contrary.

As in 1 Timothy 2, Paul appeals in 1 Corinthians 11 to God's created order, not culture, to teach women to pray and prophesy covered and men to pray uncovered. I am one of few who sees no reason why Paul's teaching here shouldn't be applied today. (Incidentally, the text teaches against cutting the hair off short, not just trimming it.)

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35

Brother Robinson may be right that the wives of the prophets were primarily under consideration. However, the principle that they were violating was one that was universal. Verse 35 says that the wives should be silent because, "...it is a shame for a woman" (any woman) "to speak in church".

I think brother Robinson's position here is wrong in three areas: (1) assuming that the motive in this teaching was to avoid violating cultural sensibilities and (2) appearing to limit the definition of the word "speak" (lalein) to chat or chatter with the implication of interruption. He seems to think that Paul was just condemning the interruption of husbands with chatting, murmuring, etc., not their participation in public discourses. (3) Brother Robinson thinks that when Paul says that he wishes all prophesied (vs. 5) and "you can all prophesy" (vs. 31) that he includes women and that they, therefore, must participate in public discourses.

The word "lalein", cannot be limited to mere chatting. It seems that the expositor W.E. Vine had heard the same type of false reasoning because he goes out of his way to dismiss it in his expository dictionary. He says, "the command prohibiting women from speaking in a church gathering, vv. 34, 35, is regarded by some as an injunction against chattering, a meaning which is absent from the use of the verse everywhere else in the New Testament; it is to be understood here in the same sense as in vv.2; 3-6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 27-29, 39." (Vol. IV. p. 57)

As Vine implies, if the use of the word "lalein" is to be limited in verse 34 to "chatter, chat" with interruption implied, then consistency demands that it be so understood in the rest of the chapter. But the word in the rest of the chapter is not talking about chatting or conversing, but rather speaking out in the assembly. Verse 29 makes that point clear. That verse says, "let two or three prophets speak..." Was he saying to let two or three prophets "chat" or "chatter"? Women were prohibited in verse 34 from doing what the prophets were told to do in verse 29!

Brother Robinson thinks that the fact that Paul said, "you can all prophesy in turn" implies that he was authorizing women to be a part of the public discourses.

The words "everyone" and "all" must be understood in light of their context and prohibitions found in other texts. Some have pointed out that these terms are often used as synecdoche, a figure of speech in which the specific is used for the general or vice versa.

An example of this type of language is Mark 1:5, "And all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan river..." However, that the word "all" is meant to be taken as a figure of speech is seen from the fact that Luke 7:30 says, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of god for themselves, not having been baptized by him."

Other texts show that the word "all" must often be understand as a general term refering to a specific group. 1 Corinthians 12:29 teaches that not all were prophets. Then it must be understand that when Paul says, "you can all prophesy", he is excluding a large portion of the church, those who didn't have the gift of prophesy.

1 Corinthians 7:2 says, "every man should have his own wife". However, the phrase "every man" must be limited to those who had the right to do it. He who divorces his wife without Biblical cause doesn't have the right to remarry. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that such a person is left with only two options: be reconciled to their spouse or remain unmarried. Paul understood this earlier when saying, "every man."

Matthew 21:22 says, "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Does the phrase "whatever" mean that we will receive a new Mercedes Benz or some other luxury just by asking for it? Of course this text is limited by 1 John 5:14, "if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us."

The word "all" (or words like it such as "everyone", etc.) is limited in many texts and such is the case in 1 Corinthians 14:31. When Paul said, "you can all prophesy", he understand that "all" would be limited to those who had the gift and the right to do so. A correct interpretation of verses 34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 helps us see that the woman is not included here when Paul says "all. " The issue doesn't have to do so much with what is included in the word "all" because we know this word is often limited. The key to the controversy involves the limitations made in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 and especially 1 Timothy 2:11, 12.

Galatians 3:25-29

Paul is indeed stating here that as far as importance as God's spiritual inheritance, the kingdom and unity are concerned, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Jack Cottrell of the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminar, who has written a series of articles in the Christian Standard on this issue, points out that the contrast being made is between the inheritance offered in the Old Testament (not for gentiles, slaves or women) and that of the New, for all individuals.

There are even different roles among men. Ephesians 4:11 speaks of various roles for various individuals, but all are equal in God's inheritance and the kingdom in spite of those different roles. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul compares the different roles in the church to the human body. Different parts of the human body have different functions, but they are all of equal importance to the body. These facts about different roles don't detract in any way from what Paul says in Galatians 3:28. We are equal, but we have different roles.

Regarding men and women, men are the spiritual equal to women, but they can't give birth! That is a role that God has designated for woman. Women are the spiritual equal of men, but they can't have the upper body strength that men have. Though equal in importance and in the inheritance they will receive, men and women were created differently with different roles in mind. This is true in the physical realm and we shouldn't be surprised that it is also true in the spiritual.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

This text is probably the key text of the whole issue. It is super clear and therefore the theories elaborated to get around it must by nature be complicated.

Brother Robinson is right about the translation of the word "silence". The New International Version does seem to give the better meaning here.

However, the rest of his interpretation is wrong. Jack Cottrell says, "feminists have worked out an elaborate picture of the church situation at Ephesus...This allows them to reinterpret the text in a way that makes Paul say exactly the opposite, or in effect, 'I do not forbid a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.'"

There are at least three wrong assumptions in brother Robinson's theory.
(1) The word "authority" (authenteo) only refers to an almost violent, illegitimate, domineering authority. Therefore, Paul is only prohibiting this type of domineering teaching over the man, not normal regular teaching.
(2) The word "authority" is linked with teaching and thus there is a single idea, "I do not permit a woman to teach in a domineering way over the man", rather than two distinct but related ideas, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over the man.
(3) Paul is not giving a reason for his teaching in citing creation in verses 13, 14, just illustrating that the Ephesian women were rebellious just like Eve.

The word "authenteo" has as one of it's definitions "to murder" or "commit a crime". However, Jack Cottrell points out that feminists are wrong to assume that since the word has a negative connotation is some of it's uses, it must therefore have it in all of them. He gives the word "luo" as an example. Sometimes it means "to loose" or "set free" and sometimes it means to "destroy or break." Scott Baldwin examined all 58 occurrences of the verb in extant Greek usage from the first century BC. through the tenth century and he found that in every case except one from the 10th century it meant as the NIV translates it, "to exercise authority" in a positive sense. Cotrell concludes that in New Testament times the word "authenteo" never meant to murder, to domineer, etc. Paul is simply prohibiting women from taking any kind of authority over the man, not just harsh, domineering authority.

There are two infinitive verbs describing what women cannot do in verse 12: (1) teach, (2) have authority (over the man). They are separated by the negative conjunction, "oude," (translated "or"). A simple analysis of the use of the word "oude" in New Testament observance reveals that "the word is used to join two and sometimes three things that may be related but distinct." Jack Cottrell quotes Dr. Thomas Edgar who examined all 144 occurrences of "oude" in the New Testament and found not one that gives support for the feminist interpretation.

Paul is doing more in verses 13 and 14 than illustrating a parallel between Eve and the supposedly rebellious Ephesian women. The main problem with the feminist interpretation is the word "gar" (for) which begins verse 13. It means "because" or to introduce the reason for something. In verse 13 Paul is appealing to creation, not as a mere illustration of Eve's rebelliousness which really isn't in 13, but as a reason for his teaching.

The appeal to creation in verse 13 does indicate that we are dealing with eternal principles and not mere concession to temporary cultural concerns. The principles of this text have to do with God's order as established from the very beginning, not just something temporarily put in place to soothe Greco-Roman sensibilities. It is not enough to simply dismiss this point by saying that it is not applied consistently by some in 1 Corinthians 11. I believe the principle should be applied in both texts.

The simple fact that verses 13-15 may be difficult to interpret, doesn't negate the fact that they appeal to God's creation as the basis for teaching in verses 11, 12, not culture. I have a slightly different interpretation to verse 15 than brother Robinson, but I don't feel it's really germane to the issue.

I think the translation of the New International Version (which brother Robinson rightly recommends on this text) is very clear. The woman should "not teach or have authority over the man." It requires a lot of linguistic gymnastics to get around that statement. Why can't we simply accept this at face value?

Dealing with differences

Brother Robinson is correct in talking of the love, patience and understanding we should have in discussing this and other differences. However, when he and others insist that women take positions of authority in the public worship services and in the congregation, those of us who feel that God has a different role in mind for them, have no choice but to either leave or violate our consciences. Since we cannot do the latter, we must do the former. This issue does not involve personal matters of individual application where more leeway can be afforded according to texts like Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, 9 but rather it involves public worship and the organization of the church and therefore by its very nature will be divisive.

Lack of time has limited this review to a few basic points, but I hope it helps us see some flaws in the reasoning of brother Robinson. I appreciate his good spirit in his extensive study and I have tried to show the same in this brief and hurried review.

Questions

1. Though men and women are equal in importance, do you think that there is absolutely no difference in the roles for them in the church? Do you think they're identical?
2. Do you think that there are absolutely no differences in the roles of men and women in the home? Do you think they are identical?
3. Though men and women are equal in importance before God, Do you acknowledge any other differences in the way that God has made them? Are they different emotionally? Were they made to serve different roles?
4. Do you think women can preach from the pulpit just as men do? Do they do it in this congregation? If not, why not?
5. Do you think women can be elders?
6. Do you think wives should be in subjection to their husbands as the church is to Christ?
7. Could baptism have been just a matter of culture and therefore not relevant today?
8. Do the bread and fruit of the vine of the Lord's supper represent symbols of Jewish culture and therefore not relevant today?
9. Could instrumental music have not been used in churches just to avoid Jewish sensibilities since they didn't use them in the synagogue? Would that make their use acceptable today in worship?

 

Other Articles by Gardner Hall
Conspiracy Theorist
When God Thinks of the Church of Christ
Is the Bible Inspired?
Is That Really True
Clapping in Worship
 

 

 Would you like others to read this article?

                    Please share!