Home|Contents

Women and Leadership and the Public Assembly.


Rex Banks.

Part 1: Introduction


 

 

 

Part 1: Introduction

 

 

In a book dealing with Biblical exegesis, Walter C. Kaiser writes under the heading Cultural Terms:

 

            "Two extremes are often found in the discussion of customs, cultures and Biblical norms. One tends to level out all features in the Bible, including its cultural institutions and terms, and to make them into normative teaching on a par with any other injunction of Scripture. The other extreme tends to jump at any suspected culturally-conditioned description in the Bible as an excuse for reducing the  teaching connected with that text to a mere report of a now defunct situation. Both of these approaches usually are examples of what not to do in responsible exegesis of Scripture." (Toward An Exegetical Theology)

 

It's not difficult to find instances of the two extremes to which Kaiser refers. The claim by some sincere believers that New Testament  instructions relating to foot washing are binding upon Christians of  every age, is an example of the first extreme.  Since scripture was not written in a vacuum, certain eternal principles set forth in the New Testament find expression in a host of  first century customs, and in this context foot washing was an appropriate cultural outworking of the principle of humble Christ-like service.  While there is good reason to believe that this principle of humble service is binding upon the Lord's followers in every generation, there is no good reason to suppose that this is true of the practice of foot washing, a practice which carries no significance in many cultures.  As Kaiser points out, it is a mistake to make "(cultural institutions and terms) into normative teaching on a par with any other injunction of Scripture," and those who insist that Christians are to imitate the historical and cultural circumstances of first century disciples do just that. 

 

Kaiser also points out that some students of scripture go to the other extreme and  "jump at any suspected culturally-conditioned description in the Bible as an excuse for reducing the  teaching connected with that text to a mere report of a now defunct situation."  Certainly this  tendency to find a cultural explanation for many Biblical teachings in blatant disregard of all the evidence to the contrary is a growing problem today, and it reflects the pluralistic and relativistic spirit of our age.  For example some  are arguing that because immersion in water was already a religiously significant practice when John the Baptist and Jesus began their ministries, this justifies the conclusion that the New Testament teaching on baptism is, in effect,  "a mere report of a now defunct situation."  Not only is such reasoning flawed, but it also reveals a profound indifference to much New Testament teaching on the topic of baptism.

 

The bottom line is this:  it is clear that the New Testament contains at least some instructions which constitute an eternal, unchanging  pattern of teaching for the guidance of Christians in every age, and it is also clear  that this pattern of teaching finds expression in a multitude of  historical and cultural circumstances which need not be reproduced today. Most believers agree on these points.  There is less agreement however about just  how to distinguish between  permanently-binding principles and cultural expressions of those principles. Some regard certain "accounts of action" in the New Testament as binding examples, while others treat those same accounts as nothing more than historical footnotes.  Some find general principles where others find ad hoc instructions appropriate to a particular cultural situation.  True, there is general agreement among believers that a distinction must be made between principle and custom, but this does not always translate into agreement on specific points.

 

Now the challenge of differentiating between eternal, unchanging scriptural principles and a particular set of historical and cultural circumstances has been at the heart of  one of the most controversial questions facing students of scripture in recent decades, namely the question of women's role in the church. Traditionally  believers have, for the most part, recognized that scripture places certain restrictions upon the role of women in the church, but with the rise of so-called "liberation theology" this view has been challenged.  One of the main contentions of  the liberationists is that historical and cultural factors rather than sacred principles undergird those passages of scripture which place limitations upon female ministry, and it is argued that since this is the case, such limitations do not apply to all women in all cultures.  Now, given the spirit of egalitarianism which pervades our society, it is not surprising that this position has received widespread support today but discipleship is all about pleasing God rather than men (Gal 2:10) and I am convinced that this new view on the role of women in the church is not the fruit of  sound exegesis, but instead a reflection of the tremendous influence of feminism upon our society.  In the following paragraphs I will explain why I take this position.

 

 

Creation Law

 

 

Kaiser points out that sometimes a scriptural command is accompanied by an explanatory comment which removes any question about its universality and permanency.  He says:

 

"If a reason for a practice or for what might appear to be a culturally-conditioned command is given, and that reason is located in God's unchanging nature, then the command or practice is of permanent relevance for all believers in all ages. (emphasis mine)  Genesis 9:6 requires that the state use capital punishment against all who commit first-degree murder 'because God made man in his own image.'  As long as men and women continue to be made in the image of God, this sanction is to be used - not as compensation for the victim's grieving family, not as a warning to other potential criminals, not as a relief from anxiety for a threatened society, but as a consequence of man's being in the image of God."  (ibid)

 

Kaiser is certainly correct about the permanent relevancy of those commands and practices which grow out of the very nature of our unchanging God.  For example, the reason that all men everywhere are to strive for holiness is that God is perfect in holiness.  ( Lev. 19:2:  1 Pet. 1:16)  The reason that lying is always wrong is that God is incapable of dishonesty.  (Tit 1:2)  Clearly divine laws which are grounded upon the Lord's essential attributes are of permanent relevance because God's nature is not subject to change.  But it does not end there.  It is equally clear from scripture that there are certain other commands which, because of their very nature, are universally and eternally binding - namely those commands which are grounded upon (what is often called) creation law.

 

The term creation law is employed by many students of scripture to speak of certain divine ordinances which "reflect the work of God in creation and depict 'the constitution of things' as they were intended to be from the Creator's hand."  (Kaiser Toward Old Testament Ethics)  In other words certain divine laws  demand conformity with the order, pattern and purpose imposed upon the universe by God.  Consider for example the prohibition against eating blood.  The reason that this prohibition  has applied to every generation, and will do so until the end of time, is that it is grounded upon an unchanging fact of creation, namely the fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood.  (Gen. 9:4:  Lev. 17:10, 11:  Acts 15:20, 29)  Since the very design of creation dictates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and since the prohibition against eating blood is grounded upon this unchangeable fact of biology, it follows that the very design of creation undergirds this prohibition.  Hence, it is eternally and universally relevant. This is true of  all creation legislation.

 

 

Creation Law and the Essential Equality of Men and Women

 

 

Now, not surprisingly the Genesis account of creation also provides the framework for much Biblical teaching about the relationship and roles of men and women. Genesis 1:26, 27 records the creation of man in the following words:

 

" 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;  and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over every thing that creeps on the earth.'   And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

 

Prior to this the process of creation has simply taken the form of divine fiat.  For example, God had said "let there be light", "let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters" and so on.  However with the creation of man this pattern is broken.  Impersonal command ("let there be") is here replaced with something like a consultation within the triune Godhead, ("Let Us make...") indicating that with the creation of man something new and unique has come into existence.  Animals are made after their kind, but man is created in God's image and likeness.  (vs 26, 27)  Exactly what is involved in man's having been created in the "image" of God is difficult to determine, but it would include all that is unique to man such as moral consciousness, free will, abstract thought, aesthetic attributes, capacity for spiritual thought and the like.  Significantly,  although other creatures exist in the form of male and female, only here in the case of man is it mentioned as significant ("male and female He created them"). Emphasized here is the fact that both male and female bear the image of God, and that both man and woman possess dominion over the rest of creation.  Thus the creation account reveals the essential equality of  the sexes.

 

Now it is because the woman, along with the man, stands at pinnacle of creation and bears the image of the divine, that scripture everywhere speaks of her dignity and worth.  In a word, creation law demands that the woman be accorded honour and respect.  Unfortunately, however, false beliefs about the origin of humanity have frequently lead to the devaluation of women.  Plato for example affirmed that "“It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls... it is only men who are complete human beings and can hope for ultimate fulfilment; the best a woman can hope for is to become a man." (Timaeus 90e)  In his The Descent of Man,  Charles Darwin also spoke disparagingly of women as the following quotation shows:  "We may also infer from the law of the deviation from averages, that the average mental power in man must be above that of women."   Sadly, all too often,  ignorance of humanity's true origin has lead to the  degradation and exploitation of womanhood, and such mistreatment stands in marked contrast with the honour which is due to the woman as "a fellow heir of the grace of life."  (1 Pet. 3:7)

Throughout His ministry, Jesus demonstrates a deep concern and genuine regard for women, and His attitude stands in marked contrast to the sentiments expressed in certain of the rabbinical writings.  In Sota 10a for example we read:  "May the words of Torah be burned, than that they should be handed over to women."  In Sota 21b "Rabbi Eliezer says: 'Whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity.'"  Mishnatractate Abot issues this warning:  "Engage not in too much conversation with women... As long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, for he goes idle from the study of the Torah, so that his end will be that he will inherit hell." Needless to say, such sentiments are not in line with the teaching of the Old Testament about the status of women.  The first century historian Josephus also distorts the teaching of the Mosaic law when he attributes the following to the great lawgiver:  "But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives.  But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex." (Antiquities 4: 8. 15)

 

Such negative views about the nature, status and influence of women predominated in the first century world, and that's what makes Jesus' treatment of women so revolutionary.

 

Jesus spoke to women in public (e.g. Jn 4:7-26:  8:10,11:  Lk 23:27-31) and His concern for their needs and feelings was evident from the fact that (among other things) He healed them (e.g. Lk 8:48; 13:12) and  raised their dead.  (Lk 7:12, 13:  Jn 11:43, 44)  He commended women  for their faith, (Matt. 15:21-28:  Mark 7:24-30) and their willingness to learn, (Lk 10:38-42) held them up as examples for imitation, (Lk 21:1-4:  cf. 20:1:  Mark 12:41-44) and used them as exemplary characters in various parables.  (e.g. Lk 18:1ff)  The gospel accounts tell of women who anointed Jesus, (Matt. 26:6-13:  Lk 7:36 -50) who contributed to His needs (Lk 8:1-3) and who bore witness to His resurrection.   (Matt. 28:5-8:  Mk 16:5-8:  Lk 24:2-9: Jn 20:1-2)  In a word, throughout his ministry Jesus accorded women the respect and honour due to those who bear the very image of the Creator, and in doing so He stood apart from many religious leaders of His day.

     

    

Creation Law and Distinctions Between the Male and Female

 

 

Following the overall account of the six days of creation in Genesis chapter 1, special attention is given to man, the crown of creation, in the next chapter.  It is interesting to note that 2:4a speaks of "heavens and earth" while 2:4b speaks of "earth and heaven" (reversing the order).  Likely this points to the fact that the earth, man's abode is now the focus.  Anyway, from Genesis 2 we learn that Adam was created prior to Eve, and it is clear that the divinely-ordained task of assigning names to the various animals (v. 19) enabled Adam to see very clearly that his nature set him apart from the rest of creation.  Having permitted the man to see his great need for companionship, the Lord then acts to meet that need as follows: 

 

"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.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  (Gen. 2:21-24)

 

Later, various spokesmen for God appeal to this more detailed account of creation in Genesis chapter 2 to explain why certain divine laws governing the relationship of the male and the female are of permanent significance. For example, when Jesus affirms that divorce "for any cause at all" is unlawful, He explains that "from the beginning" (i.e. creation) it was God's plan was for one man and one woman to be united in a permanent "one flesh" union.  (Matt. 19:4ff cf Gen. 2:24 ff)  The marriage bond then, derives its binding force, not from culture, custom or human legislation, but rather from the fact that it manifests the divine pattern and purpose for the male and the female.  That's why Paul uses the words "natural" (phusis)  and "unnatural" with reference to heterosexual and homosexual relation-ships respectively.  (Rom. 1:26, 27)  Phusis speaks of "the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse," (Thayer) and what makes heterosexuality "natural" is the fact that it conforms to creation order.  Homosexuality is "unnatural" ("monstrous, abnormal, perverse") because it violates creation order.

 

Another violation of creation order occurs when men and women ignore important lessons about headship and submission contained in Genesis chapter 2.  For example when the apostle Paul reminds us that "it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:14) he is not merely recounting an interesting historical fact, but rather explaining the ground, source or basis of male leadership in worship.  According to Paul, it is because of Adam's priority in creation that leadership in the assembly is male.  (1 Tim. 2:13)  We will consider 1 Timothy 2 in more detail later on, but the point which must be stressed here is that according to Paul, male leadership has everything to do with creation law and nothing to do with culture or tradition.  Of course liberationists have gone to great lengths to counter such arguments from creation.  For example, some  liberationists claim that  priority in creation cannot go hand and hand with headship, because such logic would lead to the unscriptural conclusion that animals are to have dominion over the human race.  Of course such "reasoning" fails to take into account the fundamental differences between man and beast (see above) and, more important still, it sets the circuitous, laboured arguments of uninspired men and women against the authoritative pronouncement of  an apostle of Jesus Christ.  In fact Paul's use of Genesis 2  to show that creation order and headship are linked is similar to the law of  primogeniture, whereby the firstborn son enjoys authority over his brethren.

 

According to Paul, another aspect of the creation account which has important implications for headship and submission is the fact that the woman derives her existence from the man.  (Gen. 2:21 - 23)  The apostle has Genesis 2 in mind when, in the course of  regulating the conduct of men and women in the public assembly, he reminds us of the fact that "man does not originate from woman, but woman from man".  (1 Cor. 11:8)  He then adds that "man was not created for the woman's sake, but the woman for the man's sake" (1 Cor. 11:9) which is likely a reference to Gen. 2:18 where Eve is said to be "a helper suitable for" Adam.  Anyway on the basis of these two facts (1 Cor. 11:8, 9) the apostle tells us something about the male and the female which had hitherto not been revealed, namely the fact that the male is the "glory of God" and the female is the "glory of man".  (1 Cor. 11:7)   True, men and women are undifferentiated in that both bear the image of God, but hand in hand with this goes the fact that the man is the "glory of God" while the woman is the "glory of man."  

 

Now it is difficult to know precisely what Paul means by calling man the glory of God and woman the glory of man and I will not list countless suggestions.  However the word "doxa" (glory) has a long, rich history in scripture.  Typically scholars use words like "radiance", "splendour", "magnificence", " excellence", "dignity", "grace", "majesty" and the like in defining the word.  Man's being the glory of God is often discussed in terms of his "representing God in authority"  (W. Harold Mare The Expositors Bible Commentary  vol. 10 ) or possessing the "function of government (reflecting) the majesty of the divine ruler," (Thayer) and certainly in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 Paul appeals to the creation event to teach that leadership in the worship assembly is male.  Thus in 1 Corinthians 11, as in 1 Timothy 2, the apostle's teaching on male headship and female subordination is grounded upon the very nature of the male and the female. 

 

Finally, in 1 Cor. 14:33b -36 Paul's teaching that women are to "keep silent in the churches" is said to reflect the principle of subordination set forth in "the Law," which is almost certainly a reference to the creation account in Genesis 2.

 

There are certain other aspects of the creation account which seem to reinforce the doctrine of male leadership even though they are not invoked by Paul or other inspired men to teach this.  First, the fact that Adam names the woman is surely significant.  Adam's right to name the animals (Gen. 2:19) is derived from the fact that he has dominion over them, and surely his right to name the woman also speaks of  his headship over her. Significantly, the Hebrew word for "man" is "ish" while the word for "woman" is "isha," and Adam's use of  "isha" in Gen. 2:23 tells us that he immediately recognizes Eve as his counterpart.  Evidently both Adam and Eve recognize the former's right to exercise authority in this matter. 

 

Next, the fact that the prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was made known to the man, (Gen. 2:16, 17) along with the fact that Adam, not Eve is blamed for the entrance of sin and death into the world (e.g. Rom. 5:12ff ) tells us that it was the man who was held responsible for violating the Lord's command.  This makes sense in light of male headship, and in this context it is significant that the curse upon the man begins " Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..." (Gen. 3:17)  Adam relinquished headship and was held accountable for having done so.  Moreover although scripture does not develop this point, perhaps the fact that Eve, rather than Adam succumbed directly to Satan's attack is significant in this context of headship.  Are we being told that  Eve's failure to honour Adam's position facilitated the temptation?   Perhaps this is Paul's point in 1 Tim. 2:14 when he says: "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived fell into transgression".

 

Anyway this much is clear:  the principle of male headship and female subordination has nothing to do with culture and custom and everything to do with the purpose and design of creation.

 

 

Headship and the Fall

 

At creation the woman had been given the twofold blessing of childbearing (1:28) and marriage, (2:18, 21-25) and when judgment is pronounced upon her following the Fall, (Gen. 3:16) it relates to these two areas.  First the Lord says, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth."  Thus the joy of bringing new life into the world (Jn 16:21) will be accompanied by a constant  reminder of rebellion against God.  Next the Lord says, "Yet your desire shall be for your husband;  And he shall rule over you." (3:16b)  This second aspect of the judgment upon the woman bears directly upon the headship question.

 

Now, apart from person and gender details, the structure of Gen. 3:16b is the same as Gen. 4:7b where the Lord says the following to Cain:  "(sin's) desire is for you, but you must master it."  This parallel between Gen. 3:16b and Gen. 4:7b helps us to understand the meaning of the former. Susan Foh's widely-quoted comment on Gen. 3:16b is worth repeating here:

 

"The woman has the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain, a desire to possess or control him.  This desire disputes the headship of the husband.  As the Lord tells Cain what he should do, that is master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband should do, that is rule his wife.... These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes.  As a result of the fall man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship.  Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband."  (Westminster Theological Journal Spring 1975)

 

In my view this is the best explanation of this challenging verse (Gen. 3:16b) It is because of the Fall that some men abuse their God-given authority while others abdicate it, and it is because of the Fall that many of the daughters of Eve struggle with the principle of female subordination. In recent years this struggle has intensified in modern western democracies, where individual freedom and the right to self-expression has come to be seen as the ultimate good.  Over the past three decades in particular, distaste for God's headship arrangement has  lead to the rejection of the biblical teaching on male leadership in the assembly, and assault after assault has been launched on those passages which clearly set forth this doctrine.  New and radical interpretations of  such passages have appeared, and long, meandering arguments have been built upon scattered biblical references in an attempt to prove that women functioned as apostles, elders and leaders in the church.

 

In the following pages we will look at Paul's instructions relating to male leadership in certain passages which are found in 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14, and we will also say a word about various scattered verses which liberationists use to support their position. Throughout we need to keep this in mind:  truth is not determined by popularity, the spirit of the age or the fallen humanity's beliefs about the way things ought to be - it is determined by study of God's word.