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
I Can't
Overcome the Past
Caiaphas
When God Thinks of
the church of Christ
