By Wayne Jackson
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he
slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof: and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man (Genesis 2:7, 18, 21-23).
The ancient Jewish Rabbis were fond of saying: “God had not formed
woman out of the head, lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye,
lest she should lust; nor out of the ear, lest she should be curious;
nor out of the heart, lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand,
lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot, lest she be a
busybody; but out of the rib, which was always covered,” indicating the
modesty that was to characterize her (Edersheim 1957, 146).
The divine portrait of woman, as painted on the biblical canvas, is
remarkable indeed. The Genesis narrative distinctly lends itself to the
impression that Eve, as the culmination of the creative week, was a
climactic jewel in Jehovah’s handiwork.
As one wanders down the corridors of Old Testament history, he is
ever refreshed by encounters with such delightful characters as Sarah,
Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Abigail, Ruth, Esther, and other
noble women. Thus could the apostle Peter direct attention to those
“holy women” who aforetime “hoped in God” (1 Peter 3:5). Nor are the
feminine persons who adorn the New Testament record less illustrious.
The names of those women who ministered to the Master, and later those
who served with distinction in the church, have become proverbial.
The Plight of Ancient Woman
In order to appreciate the role of New Testament womanhood, one must,
by way of contrast, consider the plight of ancient woman as she stood
in the world in general.
In the antique Greek environment, women were considered inferior to
men. Aristotle viewed women as somewhere between slaves and freemen.
Wives led lives of seclusion and practical slavery. In Rome women
enjoyed greater practical (though not legal) freedom than in Greece, but
licentiousness was rampant. Chastity and modesty among women were
virtually unknown (note Paul’s reference to female homosexuality in
Romans 1:26). Wives were truly second-class persons; more honor was
shown to a man’s mistress than to his wife.
The Jewish opinion of womanhood during the time of Christ needed
considerable improvement. A male’s morning prayer expressed thanks to
God that the petitioner was neither a Gentile, a slave, nor a woman.
Such attitudes, however, were the result of heathen influences.
While women were somewhat legally inferior under the law of Moses,
practically speaking, wives and mothers in Israel enjoyed great dignity.
Mothers were to be honored (Exodus 20:12), and to rebel against or show
disrespect for one’s mother was a most serious offence which could be
punished by death (Deuteronomy 21:18; 27:16).
Though the Hebrew woman was under the authority of her father and
later of her husband, she enjoyed considerable freedom and was not shut
up in the harem. . . . Though women did not ordinarily inherit property,
in a case of a sonless home the daughters might inherit (Num. 27). It
was a man’s world, but Hebrew law protected woman’s person. Rape was
punishable. Harlotry was forbidden (Lewis 1966, 425).
Edersheim pointed out that the Hebrew husband
was bound to love and cherish his wife, to support her in comfort, to
redeem her if she had been sold into slavery, and to bury her, on which
occasion even the poorest was to provide at least two mourning-fifes
and one mourning woman. He was to treat his wife with courtesy, for her
tears called down Divine vengeance (Edersheim n.d., 270).
If it be objected that the Old Testament practice of polygamy, along
with its ease of divorce for men, placed women in an unfavorable status,
it may be replied that such matters were tolerated in that “moonlight”
dispensation due to the “hardness” of Israel’s hearts (Matthew 19:8),
and were to be abolished with the introduction of the “better” system of
the New Testament.
Womanhood in the New Testament
The very first chapter of the New Testament portends the status to be
accorded women under the law of Christ. There, four women are alluded
to in the legal ancestral catalog of the Lord. Though the practice of
mentioning women in such lists was not wholly unknown, it was, in the
words of A. B. Bruce, “unusual from a genealogical point of view” (1956,
62).
Paul affirmed that “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman”
(Galatians 4:4). The birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary was the turning
point in human history for women. The Savior openly defied the attitudes
of his day in his frequent dealings with women. He conversed with the
woman at Jacob’s well (a Samaritan at that—a thing that shocked even the
disciples [see John 4:27]). He refused to bend to Pharisaical pressures
that he shun the sinful woman who anointed and kissed his holy feet
(Luke 7:36ff). Godly women were numbered among those who ministered to
the Christ (Luke 8:3), some of them accompanying him even to the foot of
the cross (John 19:25).
Though the roles of specific New Testament women will be discussed
later in this presentation, it is important at this point that some
general considerations be noted.
First, under the law of Christ, both male and female are equally
obligated to the marriage ordinance; neither husband nor wife should
depart from the other (1 Corinthians 7:11). But should a husband (as in
the case of an unbeliever) leave his wife, she is not bound (as a slave
[Arndt and Gingrich 1957, 205]) to follow the deserter (v. 15). And in
the case of marital infidelity, the woman is granted the equal privilege
of divorce and remarriage (cf. Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12).
Second, inspiration clearly stresses the mutual dependence of men and
women in Christ. Paul says, “Nevertheless, neither is the woman without
the man, nor the man without the woman in the Lord” (1 Corinthians
11:11). Neither is complete without the other.
Third, in the matter of salvation, both stand on equal footing before
God. Paul says concerning those who have obeyed the gospel: “There can
be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians
3:28). Professor Colin Brown observed:
This, however, is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships.
Rather, it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation
history. As Paul goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s then you are
Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. also
Rom. 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same status before God; but
they do not necessarily have the same function (Brown 1976, 570).
Galatians 3:28 is certainly in harmony with 1 Peter 3:7, which makes it clear that women are “joint-heirs of the grace of life.”
Fourth, the New Testament authorizes woman a domain of authority
within the home. Younger widows are advised to marry, bear children, and
“rule the household” (1 Timothy 5:14). Lenski says:
“To rule the house” means as the wife and mother in the home, to
manage the household affairs. This is the domain and province of woman,
in which no man can compete with her. Its greatness and its importance
should ever be held up as woman’s divinely intended sphere, in which all
her womanly qualities and gifts find full play and happiest
gratification (1961, 676).
This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home
equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be in
subjection to him willingly (Ephesians 5:22, 23). Yet, he should
lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management
of domestic matters, for God has ordained it.
One historian has noted:
The way in which the Church began to lift woman up into privilege and
hope was one of its most prompt and beautiful transformations from the
blight of paganism. Too long in the darkness, she was now helped into
the sunlight (Hurst 1897, 146).
Such a transformation impressed even the heathen world; Libanius, a
pagan writer, exclaimed: “What women these Christians have!” (Pratt
1939, 3103).
The Divine Subordination of Woman
By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman. This principle
obtains in society at large, in the church, and in the home (1
Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24). The graduation of authority rests
on two bases: first, the original constitution of the sexes as they were
created; and, second, woman’s role in the fall.
Concerning the former, the Bible teaches:
- Woman was made as a help for man—not the reverse (Genesis 2:18, 20).
- Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the
man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for
the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
- Again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).
As to woman’s role in the fall, she believed Satan’s lie that she
might become as God, hence, was “beguiled” (Genesis 3:13; 2 Corinthians
11:3) or “deceived” (1 Timothy 2:14), whereas Adam, laboring under no
such deception (1 Timothy 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for
the woman (Genesis 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased
after her fall (v. 16).
These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do
mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is
subordinate in rank to man. It ought to be emphasized that as Christ’s
subjection to the Father involved no deprivation of dignity (Philippians
2:5-11), so there is none in woman’s subjection to man. Thus, as we
shall presently observe, because of these
historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely limited.
Women’s “Lib” or the Word of God?
There is the saying: “From Adam’s rib to Women’s Lib, you’ve come a
long way, baby.” Indeed! Some have gone a considerable distance from the
word of God. Every significant movement within society eventually—to
some degree—makes itself felt in the church.
The phenomenon of “women’s liberation” is no exception. There are
those in the body of Christ who are clamoring that women must throw off
the yoke of male domination and claim their rightful place in the Lord’s
kingdom. Some are suggesting that women may be elders, preachers, and
leaders in public worship.
There have been two basic approaches to this problem. Some have
adopted a completely modernistic stance by asserting that certain
“troubling passages” in the New Testament are merely the result of
Pharisaic and Rabbinic prejudices, reflecting the backward ignorance of
the first century. And so, such passages are not authoritative for
today’s church.
Others, attempting to assume a more conservative position, claim
there is biblical support for feminine equality in leadership roles. It
is, however, the burden of this presentation to show that there is
no scriptural authority for women elders, women preachers, or women worship leaders.
First, it hardly should be necessary to labor over the point that no
woman is authorized to serve as an elder; the Bible is clear on this
matter. The elder is to be the “husband [Greek,
aner, a male as opposed to a woman (Arndt and Gingrich, 65)] of one wife” (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:2). The “elder women” (
presbuteras) of 1 Timothy 5:2 (cf. Titus 2:3) are simply older women in contrast to the younger (
neoterous); they are not church leaders.
Second, the New Testament does not authorize a female
(public-preaching) ministry, but rather absolutely prohibits such.
Perhaps the most effective way to approach this matter is to examine
some of the currently circulated arguments in support of women
preachers.
“Prophesying Women”
The New Testament speaks of women prophesying (Acts 2:18; 21:9; 1
Corinthians 11:5). It is assumed that prophesying was preaching, hence,
women of the first century preached.
The word “prophesy” is from two Greek roots,
pro (forth) and
phemi
(to speak). It is a very general term which means “to teach, refute,
reprove, admonish, [or] comfort” (Thayer 1958, 553; cf. 1 Corinthians
14:3). It also can suggest the idea of “giving thanks and praising God”
(1 Chronicles 25:3). The meaning of the word must be determined by the
context in which it occurs, as well as from other information in the
Scriptures.
Paul limits the extent of a woman’s “forth-speaking” (teaching, etc.)
when he writes: “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion
over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:12). The negative
conjunction
oude (nor) is
explanatory in force, thus revealing that the
kind of teaching prohibited by the apostle is that which assumes
dominion over the man (Lenski, 563).
Certainly women may teach (cf. Titus 2:3); they may, in certain ways,
teach men. There is a reciprocal teaching in singing (Colossians 3:16),
and privately, in conjunction with her husband, Priscilla was involved
in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). But a woman may not assume the
formal position of teacher, with the man subordinated to the role of student, without violating a New Testament command.
“Women Served as Church Deacons”
On the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that:
- Phoebe was a church official (deacon);
- the church was to “assist her,” thus implying her authority over the church; and,
- she had been a “helper” (
prostatis) of many, implying that she had a role of “authority, discipline, over-seeing.”
All of this is supposed to show that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church.
In response:
- The word
diakonos simply means a “servant” (Matthew
23:11; John 2:5, etc.), and any “official” attachment to the term must
be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12.
- The fact that the saints were encouraged to “assist” Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word
paristemi meant to “come to the aid of, help, stand by” (Arndt and Gingrich, 633). When Paul said, “the Lord stood by pareste me” (2 Timothy 4:17), he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over Christ!
- The word
prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight. If so, then Phoebe exercised authority over Paul,
for she had been his “helper” as well as others! Though it is found
only here in the New Testament, this term, which can connote merely the
idea of rendering assistance, is used in a third-century B.C. letter from a son to his father (the verbal form): “[T]here will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me” (Moulton and Milligan 1963, 551).
Euodia and Syntyche: Paul’s “Fellow-Workers”
In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul says that Euodia and Syntyche “labored”
with him in the gospel; he calls them, along with others, his
“fellow-workers.” Again, the assumption is made that this necessitates
an authoritarian position comparable to the apostle’s.
The assumption is unwarranted. Christians are said to be “God’s
fellow-workers” (1 Corinthians 3:9); obviously, this does not suggest
that we are authorized to act as deity! Countless Christian ladies have
assisted gospel preachers in numerous ways without ever having become
public preachers.
“Junia Was an Apostle”
It is said that Junia (
KJV), a woman, was an apostle, and therefore she certainly occupied a position of authority in the primitive church (Romans 16:7).
In the first place, in the Greek text the name is Junian (in the
accusative case—the gender of the name is not evident); it could be
either Junia (feminine), or more likely, Junias (masculine). Origen, a
writer of the third century
A.D., considered it a reference to a man (Lightfoot 1957, 96).
But secondly, it is not even certain that Junias is here identified as an “apostle.” The phrase, “of note among the apostles” (
ASV),
is rendered by Zahn as “famed, mentioned with honor in the circle of
the apostles” (1909, 418), thus yielding the sense of being well-known
by the apostles, rather than actually being an apostle.
In the third place, the word apostle is used occasionally in the
Bible in a non-technical sense to denote merely a messenger. Jesus says
that “one sent” (
apostolos) is not greater than the sender (John 13:16). The word need not imply one who has dominion over another, nor even a preacher.
“Women Preachers Authorized by the Law”
Some argue that Paul’s admonition that women be in subjection is
limited by the expression, “as also saith the law” (1 Corinthians
14:34). Since the law allowed women prophets (as in the case of Miriam,
Huldah, and Anna), and even a woman judge (Deborah), so, preaching
executives are permissible in the church today.
In response we must point out:
- When Miriam prophesied it was “all the women” that went out after
her (Exodus 15:20), and there is no evidence that she preached to men.
- Though Huldah was a prophetess, the solitary record of her
prophesying involved some men going to her where they communed privately
(2 Kings 22:14ff; 2 Chronicles 34:22ff). It is impossible to find
public preaching here.
- Anna was a prophetess “who departed not from the temple” (Luke 2:36-38). In describing the temple, Josephus (The Wars of the Jews,
5.5.2) says: “[T]here was a partition built for the women” that
separated them from the men; this was “the proper place wherein they
were to worship.” It cannot be proved that Anna publicly preached to
mixed audiences.
- Deborah was a prophetess of the hill country of Ephraim, but there
is no indication that she publicly proclaimed God’s message to the
multitudes; rather, “the children of Israel came unto her for judgment”
(Judges 4:5). She gave prophetic judgment as a “mother in Israel” (5:7).
The fact that she judged at all is a dramatic commentary on the
sickening weakness of the Israelites during this period, and Deborah’s
song (chapter 5) laments this woeful condition. This was but one of
those occasions where Jehovah accommodated his working to Israel’s
weaknesses (cf. 1 Samuel 8:9; Matthew 19:8).
“1 Corinthians 14:33 Does Not Apply Today”
May 1 Corinthians 14:33 be used to oppose women preachers? One view
contends it may not be. It is alleged that contextual considerations
indicate that the meeting contemplated in 1 Corinthians 14 is not
comparable to any convened in the church today. And so, supposedly,
these verses are not applicable to church assemblies today (Woods 1976,
106-112).
Another view, with much greater weight, recognizes that 1 Corinthians
14 has to do primarily with a unique first-century situation, i.e., the
reception of spiritual gifts. Nevertheless, it sees Paul, in this
context, as enunciating essentially the same
principle as that set forth in 1 Timothy 2:12ff.
H. P. Hamann writes:
If we have the same writer in both letters writing on the same
matter, we have the right to allow one text to explain the other, and
especially to let the clearer or more definite throw light on the less
precise. So 1 Timothy 2 is the key for the understanding of 1
Corinthians 14 (1976, 8).
It is certain that 1 Corinthians 14:33ff lends no support to the
notion of women preachers. A sexually integrated female preaching
ministry is not sanctioned anywhere in the Scriptures.
The New Testament Is Clear
Finally, the New Testament makes it clear that males are to lead the
acts of worship in assemblies of mixed sexes. In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul
instructs that “the men [
andras – accusative plural of
aner,
males only] pray in every place.” Women may certainly pray (1
Corinthians 11:5), and it hardly would be denied that, in some sense,
she could pray in
every place.
However, there is another sense in which only males may pray in
every place. Obviously, it is the
leading
of prayers in mixed groups that is restricted to the man. Commenting
upon this verse, a noted Greek scholar has well said, “The ministers of
public prayer must be the men of the congregation, not the women” (White
1956, 106). The same principle, of course, would also apply to other
acts of public worship.
“What About Culture?”
It has become fashionable to assert that Paul’s teaching regarding feminine subordination was aimed at conformity to the
culture
of his day—somewhat like instructions concerning slavery. And so, it is
claimed, just as the New Testament contained seeds for the abolition of
slavery, it also contained the seeds for woman’s eventual full equality
with man in church life.
The alleged parallel is simply not valid. In the four major contexts
where Paul discusses male-female relationships (1 Corinthians 11:2-16;
14:33b-35; Ephesians 5:22-23; 1 Timothy 2:8-15), the principle of
subjection, as well as its application to specific situations, are
grounded upon
historical facts related to the origin and constitution of human relationships, and not upon
culture.
While it is important to study ancient culture so as to better
understand the Bible, it must not be an overriding factor in
interpretation. To substitute culture for a
stated apostolic reason is to turn
exegesis into
eisegesis, i.e., thrusting a foreign meaning into the text (Sproul 1976, 13ff).
Concluding Remarks
It is regrettable that such major attention must be given to the
negative side of this issue, but such appears to be necessary in view of
prevalent error currently being propagated.
The New Testament abounds with examples of godly women who,
consistent with their assigned roles, served their Master with dignity
and honor. Yes, women whose names will be remembered with admiration
long after the modern-day feminists are gone and forgotten!
God’s women make a vital contribution to the kingdom of Christ on
earth. Whether they are continuing steadfastly in prayer (Acts 1:14),
doing good works and almsdeeds (9:36), showing hospitality (12:12;
16:14; 1 Timothy 5:10), teaching the word in harmony with divine
authority (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3-4), being good wives (Proverbs
31:10ff), rearing godly children (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15), or
accomplishing various other commendable tasks, let us “rise up and call
them blessed.” And may their name be Legion!
NOTE: Some contend that the
principle
in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is binding today, but not Paul’s specific
application (Roberts 1959, 183ff). Others, including this author,
believe that both the subjection principle and its
specific application are required today (see Jackson 1971).]
