The Scriptures are clear that although male and female “… are all one in Christ Jesus” in relation to their position as “heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28, 29), they are nevertheless to act out different roles, demonstrating different principles in their lives and in their worship. The Apostle Paul, under Holy Spirit guidance, describes the relationship between men and women, Christ and God in terms of a hierarchy thus: “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). It is important therefore, to recognise one’s own place within the hierarchy, as being different members of the family of God.
The following passage is relevant to the subject at hand:
“… let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (1 Tim. 2:11-15).
From this passage then, it is quite plain that whatever roles sisters may have within the ecclesia, those roles must involve “learning in silence”. In other words, they ought not have a role which involves teaching, but rather learning. Those who deny this teaching sometimes make the claim that:
“Note, ‘quietness’ and ‘silent’ are the same Greek word hesuchia. This does not mean ‘keep your mouth shut’ but something like ‘do not chatter’ or ‘do not gossip’. In 2 Thessalonians 3:12 it is translated ‘settle down’. This instruction by Paul does not forbid a woman to pray or preach (prophesy) in church, but is a reminder of good behaviour and manners”.
Here is the claim then: that when the Apostle was ‘moved’ by the Holy Spirit to write that women must “be in silence” in the ecclesia, he actually meant that women are allowed to speak, in the form of prayers and preaching. For the Greek word does not mean “silence” at all, but merely “something like … do not gossip,” and is merely a reminder to show “good behaviour and manners”.
How accurate is this definition, when compared to the Spirit’s usage of the word elsewhere? The same word is used in Acts 22:
“… Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) …” (Acts 21:40-22:2).
Notice here, there was a “great silence” made first. This would be something like not chattering, or gossiping, for everyone quietened down to listen to what the Apostle had to say. Yet the word used here is not the word that the Spirit through Paul used in 1 Tim 2. Then, when they all heard that Paul was speaking in Hebrew, “they kept the more silence” – and this is the same word as in 1 Tim 2. This shows the meaning of the word – not merely to quieten down, but to be “the more silent”, that is, absolutely quiet. The Apostle is quite plain then; sisters ought to be absolutely silent in the ecclesia – which is not at all in harmony with them speaking in terms of offering prayers, and preaching.
Another passage which appears relevant is 1 Corinthians 14:
“let your women keep silence in the ecclesias: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the ecclesia” (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
Here, our adversaries attempt to dismiss the passage by stating that it was merely following local custom:
“The reference to ‘the law’ here can hardly mean the Law of Moses, but more likely means local custom”
But when the Apostle writes as also saith the “law,” he is referring to a “law”, not a mere custom. He cites “the law” as his authority for his teaching. What “law” is he referring to?
1 Timothy 2 furnishes us with the answer, for here we learn of Paul’s reason why sisters are “to be in silence”: “for Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” So then, sisters are enacting particular principles to do with the beginning of the human race. At the beginning, Adam had a teaching role; he was to teach his wife to obey the Law of God in Eden. Yet as events turned out, Eve taught him instead, as she taught him to disobey the commandment. So, rather than being a help meet for Adam, the woman became a stumbling block to him, causing him to fall from grace. Even so, by submitting themselves to the man, a woman is memorialising what took place, and reflecting what ought to have been the correct arrangement. This arrangement is, in fact, according to the Law – not the law of Moses, but Edenic Law:
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16).
Here is the matter established from the beginning; the man was to “rule” over the woman. This was Edenic Law issued after the fall, and which both the man and the woman were expected to observe. Whatever roles women may have outside in the world, within the ecclesia that is the order to be observed; men and women working together, yet with different roles, for the good of the whole ecclesia. This is a vital point to recognise; the issue is not one of whether or not women are inferior to men, rather it is one of fulfilling Divinely-appointed roles.
Sometimes it is argued that by maintaining a distinction between men and women in service, it is because we are holding to Victorian values. But that this is not so is evident from Brother Robert Robert’s words on the matter:
“I have heard some speak contemptuously of the sisters as “mere women, only fit to nurse babies, and look after the pudding.” Against such a doctrine every true brother will earnestly protest. It is not only degrading to her whom God has given us for “an helpmeet”, but it is inconsistent with the Gospel which teaches that there is neither male or female in Christ: that we are all one in Christ Jesus. …
… Sisters are never likely to develop into noble servants of Christ if the door is shut in their face, by a theory which would consign them to cradles, pots and pans. I do not mean to suggest that cradles and pans are incompatible with the higher duties any more than the hammers, shoe lasts, or baking troughs of their rougher brethren, but a doctrine which would tie them all the time to these, is an offence and a mischief. It is the part of true nobility to shine in the performance of the humblest duties, we will not say “stoop”, or “condescend”, because there is no stooping in the case. These humble duties, which are most important in the economy of life, become exalted in the hands of intelligence and worth. But to insist on confining sisters to these, would be to ignore that fact that they have brains as well as bodies; and that men have other needs of help-meetship besides those of knife and fork. Such a boorish doctrine would destroy companionship, where brethren need it most, and unfit their wives the highest function of motherhood, which is to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In fact, it is a doctrine to be opposed and detested as much as any hurtful doctrine may be. The man who holds it, and much more the man who preaches it, deserves to be deprived of every social advantage, and to be shut up in a cave. This, in fact, is his destiny at last”
Robert Roberts, Spiritual Ignorance and Women’s Position: https://bibleonline.uk/archives/21597
Clearly these words were ahead of his times, and were not at all derogatory towards women!
Another objection is to characterise our position to say that women cannot “fully participate” in the meetings, with proponents of Sisters having a teaching role arguing for “full inclusion.” But again, such a charge misses the point entirely! What of a brother who is unable to teach from the platform for lack of confidence, ability, or any other reason? Is it the case that he is not fully included? That he cannot have “full participation” in the proceedings? This is no more than a “straw man” fallacy. We teach full inclusion, yet different roles – a very different thing.
A further objection is an argument from silence. It is said that Jesus never specifically taught that sisters should not teach in the ecclesia – this is said to be a later teaching of Paul, who was “misogynistic”. But the Lord’s perceived silence on the matter does not assume approval of our adversary’s position. Jesus didn’t specifically teach anything about child sacrifice either – do we therefore assume that he agreed with such an abominable practice? By no means! What the Apostle Paul taught is authoritative, and does not in any way contradict the direct teaching of Christ – personally we would rather follow the writings of an inspired Apostle than the whim of human feelings.
There is one passage of Scripture used to support the modern ecclesial version of “women’s lib”:
“every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head …” (1 Cor. 11:5).
Hence it is said in connection with this, that sisters can pray and teach in the assemblies:
“I find it difficult to grasp how a Bible-led community can oppose godly sisters in Christ participating in public prayer and praise to our Heavenly Father …”.
However, nobody is suggesting that sisters cannot participate in public prayer and praise – we have never heard that proposal presented. Scripturally, Sisters can participate in prayer and praise – nobody doubts that – that is just not the issue! However, they cannot engage in a role of leading prayers, or otherwise speaking/teaching role in the ecclesial environment – which is different.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:5, there are a number of points to be observed here:
- The reference to “prophesieth” indicates the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, as cited in Acts chapter 2:
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and they shall prophesy …” (Acts 2:17-18; see also 21:9).
Here, the “daughters” and “handmaidens” are prophesying specifically as a consequence of receiving Holy Spirit power. Therefore, the most that can be drawn out of 1 Cor. 11:5, is that sisters who are inspired by the Holy Spirit (and who are therefore not speaking their own words, but Yahweh’s) can speak in the ecclesia. Clearly, this does not describe the current situation in ecclesias today.
- The passage does not state whether or not brethren were present at the time. Thus, it might be supposed in the light of the other passages we have considered, that these sisters did not lead prayers or prophesy in the ecclesia in the presence of the brethren, but rather after the example of Miriam, Moses’ sister, to the sisters only.
The general response to points such as those we made above, is generalisation, characterisation and misrepresentation, rather than an endeavour to discuss specific Bible passages. As an example, it is said that we are “misogynistic” and seek to degrade women, teaching “male dominance”, and that we are saying women are inferior to men. But this is just not true, and it is said in an effort to avoid discussing the specific Bible passages cited above. We accord with Robert Robert’s position (above), and remain in opposition to such a doctrine – we fully uphold the sister’s valuable service (as per Proverbs 31). We believe that both brethren and sisters should humbly accept their respective roles within the ecclesia, without murmuring and complaining, and doing the revealed Will of the Lord in their respective positions.
Christopher Maddocks
