New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1 · New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1 Ministering to Women in the Church This is lecture number three: “New

Ministering to Women in the Church

Transcript - ML505 Ministering to Women in the Church © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 14

LESSON 03 of 24ML505

New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1

Ministering to Women in the Church

This is lecture number three: “New Testament Passages Addressing the Roles of Women, Part 1.” There is going to be a two-part presentation of the major texts that address women’s issues from the New Testament.

In our last lesson, we looked at passages in Genesis concerning the fall and its consequences: how life would be in the fallen state. The picture was pretty bleak until we could see the great verse of hope in 3:15 where God promised to send someone to overcome death and sin and provide righteousness to a lost and dying world. We know that Christ—God in human form—accomplished all of that on the cross, and that with the coming of the Holy Spirit we have a freedom and enablement to live life on a higher level. Because of the fall, there was need for hierarchy and order for living life for God’s glory. Just as there is a hierarchy within the Godhead, so God introduced a hierarchy upon the earth. Hierarchy does not imply inferiority, for we know that God the Son is not inferior to God the Father.

In this lesson and the lessons to follow, we will be studying six major texts addressing the roles of women. These texts in order of our study will be (1) 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; (2) 1 Corinthians 14:33–38; (3) 1 Timothy 2:8–15; (4) Ephesians 5:22–23; (5) Colossians 3:18–19; (6) 1 Peter 3:1–17.

Looking at 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, and I am reading from that passage:

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her

Lucy Mabery-Foster, PhD Experience: Professor of Pastoral Ministries,

Dallas Theological Seminary (1990-2002)



2 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and the glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

I want to first look at verse 3 of our passage. The first thing that needs to be addressed here is the word headship. The word from the Greek is kephale. When the New Testament says that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a woman is the man,” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, or that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church,” in Ephesians 5:23, Christians have usually understood the word head to mean authority over. So Christ is the authority over the church, and a husband is the authority over his wife. But that interpretation has been challenged recently by those who claim, at least for some passages, that the word head means source or origin, rather than authority over. So Christ is the source of every man. Christ is the source of the church. And, referring to Adam and Eve, the man is the source of the woman.

I would like for us to examine the arguments in favor of the meaning “source.” Wayne Grudem says that the most influential and explicit statement of the position that kephale means source was from the article entitled “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?” by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelson. The Mickelsons argued that “head” in Greek usage does not mean boss or final authority, but that a common meaning was “source” or origin, as we use it in the head of the Mississippi River. They suggested the meaning “source” for the word head in 1 Corinthians 11:3. That says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the source of every man, and that the man is the source of a woman, and that God is the source of Christ.” And also in Colossians 1:18, they would read it this way: “He is also source of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.”



3 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

Other writers make similar claims regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3. Margaret Howe says, “The word head here must be understood not as ‘ruler’ but as ‘source.’ Christ came from God. He is the only Son from the Father.” And she uses as her support John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” As the agent of creation, she uses John 1:3, which says, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Christ brought the man into being, and from the male of the species the female came into being (Genesis 2:21–22).

Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty say that kephale is used almost synonymously with arche, meaning “beginning,” somewhat similar to our use of the headwaters of a river or fountainhead. So, when Ephesians 5:23 says that “Christ is the head of the church, His body,” they take it to mean that He is the church’s life giver. And when Colossians 2:10 calls Christ “the head of all rule and authority,” Scanzoni and Hardesty say that “head” here obviously means source. Similarly, Christ’s headship over the church refers to His being the source of its life.

Richard and Joyce Boldrey apparently support this interpretation when they say of 1 Corinthians 11, “When Paul spoke of woman’s head being the man, he was emphasizing man’s temporal priority and woman’s derivation from him.” The reference which I just mentioned represents what we may call a Christian feminist perspective, but there are others who do not generally endorse the Christian feminist position but who also support this view of kephale.

F. F. Bruce in his commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, concerning our verse of 1 Corinthians 11:3, makes this statement: “By head in this context, we are probably to understand not, as has frequently been suggested chief or ruler, but rather source or origin, a sense well attested for Greek kephale.” Similarly, C. K. Barrett says, “In Greek usage, the word, when metaphorical, may apply to origin.” He uses as support for this view verse 8 and following. James Hurley, although retaining the sense “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, allows the meaning “source” in Colossians 2:19 and in Ephesians 4:15. He says this:

In English we speak of the head of a river to refer to its point of origin. This was a typical usage of “head” in classical Greek. In Paul’s day, therefore, the Greek word head could mean a physical head, a person with authority, or the source of something. “Head” was used in first-century Greek as a synonym for the more common words for ruler and source.



4 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

One thing that we need to address here is the claim that “source” was a commonly known or easily recognized sense of the word head for the Greek-speaking readers of Paul’s epistles. Is this true? Was it a commonly known or easily recognized sense of this word? This point has to be established by anyone arguing for the meaning “source” in the New Testament. If we can’t show this, then we must conclude that no such possible meaning would have come to the minds of Paul or his readers, and we will be forced to look at other possible senses to interpret the New Testament passage in question.

In order to establish the feasibility of this interpretation, we need to find brief quotations from a few occurrences of the word in any ancient Greek writer where the context makes it clear that the author is using kephale to mean “source.” This is the common procedure for establishing possible meanings for words in all New Testament study because, as you remember, all of the authors that I have just quoted all say that it was a common usage. “Source” is not listed as a possible meaning for kephale in the Standard Lexicon for New Testament Greek by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker; nor do the older New Testament lexicons by Thayer and Cremer list such a sense; nor does the Lexicon to the Papyri by Moulton and Milligan.

So we see that those who are proposing that kephale means “source” are proposing a new meaning, one previously recognized by New Testament lexicons. They are taking the meaning of all of these lexicons that are used by scholars who study the New Testament, and they are not finding one single example in them. That doesn’t make the meaning “source” impossible, however; but it does mean that we have a right to demand some convincing citations from ancient Greek literature that the editors of these lexicons had overlooked or misunderstood.

None of the Christian feminists I’ve mentioned cited any evidence from ancient literature or from other scholars. F. F. Bruce and James Hurley cite no evidence from ancient literature, but both of them refer to an article by Stephan Bedale. But when we read Bedale’s article, we see that he does not cite even one text from ancient Greek literature outside the Bible. So the widely accepted argument for our common use of kephale to mean “source” in extrabiblical Greek literature has rested on only two occurrences of the word, which are listed in Liddell and Scott, the lexicon for classical, not specifically New Testament, Greek. These two citations are not referring to the same form of our word, so they are misquoted. Bedale’s article stated that kephale does not normally mean ruler. He cites no evidence, no results of word studies, no lexical authorities to demonstrate his point.



5 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

He simply assumes it to be true for the rest of the article. Then the two men I have mentioned quote him as an authority.

Now we need to look at the evidence from New Testament Greek lexicons. All standard lexicons and dictionaries for New Testament Greek list the meaning “authority over” for kephale, meaning “head.” Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, the standard lexicon for scholars to use for the study of the New Testament, state the following definition: “In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank.” They list thirteen examples of such usage.

Grudem surveyed the word kephale through the new computerized database system called TLG, to project at the University of California, Irvine. This project has more than twenty million words from ancient Greek texts and 2,336 incidences of the word, dating from the eighth century BC—that’s back in Homer’s time onward—and ranging over all sorts of literature, including history, philosophy, drama, poetry, rhetoric, geography, and romantic writings, and coming from thirty-six different authors. The discovery was made that absolutely no incidences were discovered in which the word had the meaning “source” or “origin.” Forty-nine occurrences in the Septuagint use the word to mean “head.”

There is, in conclusion, overwhelming evidence that the meaning of ruler, authority over, has sufficient attestation to establish it clearly as a legitimate sense for kephale in Greek literature at the time of the New Testament. It is the meaning that best suits the New Testament texts that speak of the relationship between men and women, by saying that the man is the head of a woman, and the husband is the head of the wife.

Trying to tie in our present passage with the creation account from verses 8 and 9 is not the point of the passage. When we look at 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, and it says, “For man does not originate from the woman, but woman from the man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for the man’s sake.” We will look at these verses at a later time, but that is not the point of the passage here. The best argument from Scripture is to look at Ephesians 1:22, where headship of the church is defined. The word over must mean authority, and exegesis can’t support using one meaning in one place and another in other places. So if you look at Ephesians 1:22, “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,” this is a verse that really establishes the word over, meaning authority. As I have stated earlier, this can’t be supported from earlier Greek to say that it means “source,” looking into Greek literature.



6 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

Now I would like for us to look at 1 Corinthians 11:4–5. Here it reads: “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.” Several questions arise from these two verses. The first question is, “What is praying and prophesying? Where is it to be done, when is it to be done, and how is it to be done?” The second question is, “What is head covering?” The third question might be, “What is shaming the head?” The fourth question might be, “Are verses 4 and 5 literal, or are they metaphorical?”

The prophets in the Old Testament were direct mouthpieces of God. They proclaimed revelations from God to His people. In Deuteronomy 18:18–22, God says, “I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” Dr. Allen Ross makes the point that the prophet’s words were authoritative and binding. “Whosoever shall not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.” In addition, Deuteronomy 13 says that even if a prophet came with dreams or miraculous signs and wonders, and even if what he predicted came to pass, his message had to harmonize with the word of the Lord. According to Dr. Ross, true prophets preached and applied the word of the Lord so that the people would live in obedience to Him. And they predicted the future as a proof of the authenticity of their messages.

In their mission to speak the word of the Lord, their ministry might take one of several important forms. The first form would be that that prophet at times would announce the decision of the council. We see this in 1 Kings 22:19 and in Jeremiah 23:18 and 22. The second thing that a prophet did in the Old Testament was at times he would predict impending judgment or salvation. The third thing a prophet would do would be to interpret the history of Israel and to reiterate the Law as the explanation of God’s dealings with His people. The fourth thing that the prophet would do was that he was God’s spokesman or spokeswoman in the theocracy, and so over other positions. The fifth thing that a prophet would do would be to exhort and influence behavior in moral teachings and exhortations. They came on the scene primarily to rebuke sin and to warn of judgment. The sixth and final thing a prophet would do is that he wrote Holy Scripture. From Moses to Malachi, the word of the Lord was declared and written by the prophets. There were women whose words were recorded as Scripture in the Old Testament. We will look at those in more detail later.



7 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

The prophets had no authority in and of themselves. They were merely messengers, spokesmen and spokeswomen for God. Their authority was in God’s Word. We know that women were prophetesses in the Old Testament. We have Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. They were singled out if you look at 2 Kings 22:14 and following and Nehemiah 6:14. They were not part of the temple staff, and in many cases, they were not even welcome in the temple because of the truthfulness of their words.

Huldah was the prominent religious authority and the prophetess to whom the king of Judah directed Hilkiah the priest and Shaphan the scribe and other prominent people in the state to inquire about the discovery of the book of the law. When they found the book of the law that had been lost for years, they inquired of Huldah to see if it was the authoritative Word of God.

Some aspects of the function of prophets and prophetesses in the Old Testament have been made available to the church through the spiritual gift of prophecy, but much of what it involved has not. The prophets and prophetesses were raised up for a period of time but then eventually diminished with the coming of the Lord. The gift of prophecy, 1 Corinthians 12:10–11, if you’ll turn to that passage, it says “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” It says, “And to another the effecting of miracles, and another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.” We see in verse 10 the gift of “prophecy.” It’s in the general sense, meaning to proclaim the Word of the Lord.

The special sense of prophecy would involve the receiving and delivering of a message from God, a revelation, the content of that message possibly involving telling the future. Paul says that one might receive a revelation even while someone is prophesying (in 1 Corinthians 14:29). So there are the two senses in the one passage. There seems to have been a great need for this as the early church was becoming established and Scripture was not yet fully written.

Women had the gift of prophecy; because in the Holy Spirit’s giving of spiritual gifts, there is no distinction between male and female. In 1 Corinthians 12:11, which I read before, it says that the Holy Spirit gives to each believer as He chooses.

It is difficult to determine the exact nature of the head covering. Some say that it is a woman’s literal hair, because of verse 15. If you look back at our passage in 1 Corinthians 11:15, it says, “But if a woman has long hair, is it not a glory to her?



8 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

For her hair is given to her as a covering.” But if a woman has long hair, is that going to satisfy the meaning of this verse? The text does not seem to support that it does. Whether or not the text is referring to a full facial veil or a shawl that is draped over the top is very unclear. Paul’s argument does not imply a cultural rationale. In other words, a woman should wear a head covering as a helpmeet when addressing the body only. You cannot say that it is cultural. The elements here are cultural, but the command is not. Other scholars say that it is an attitude of submission in the heart.

The next point that we need to look at is, What does it mean to shame her head? It is implying that in some way the woman is shaming herself. She is not resting under the authority of headship which Paul presents in verse 3. Many conservative theologians today adhere to the attitude idea, since it is also a symbol for the angels to note. By attitude, I mean that it is an attitude of the heart. There are many professors around the country who will look at this and say, conservatively, that it is an attitude of the heart.

In 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, then, we continue in our study, “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” Now in verses 8–10, Paul presents the arguments from creation. In verse 9 it says, “for indeed man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s sake.” Paul is not saying here that the woman was created for the man to do with as he chooses, but that God created the woman because it was not good for the man to be alone. In other words, he’s referring here to the helper concept that I’ve mentioned in one of our past lessons, that God created woman to be a helper, a counterpart for man, since it was not good that he be alone in order to fulfill the mandates that God was presenting in the book of Genesis for His kingdom.

When you look at 1 Corinthians 11:11, it says, “However, in the Lord, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor is the man independent of the woman.” We are reminded of Galatians 3:28, where Paul said “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.” Also in Ephesians 5:21, where Paul says, “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”

Paul, in our present passage, is telling us that in Christ men and women are alike subject to one another. We forget this verse. Sometimes we so pick and choose that we do not want to see that Paul is actually telling men and women that they are to be subject to one another.



9 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

In Christ, men and women are alike subject to one another. Remember we are counterparts of one another, molded by God to fulfill the work of the ministry. Although there are role distinctions, there is no inequality. John MacArthur states it well with these words:

As far as saving and sanctifying grace is concerned, a woman comes as deeply into communion with God as a man. She was made equally in the image of God, and that image is equally restored through faith in Jesus Christ. She will be as much like Jesus as any man when we see our Lord face to face.

In 1 Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.”

In looking at 1 Corinthians 11:12, Paul is showing a mutuality of origin here. I would like to read that verse: “For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” Paul is showing this mutuality of origin here. Just as a woman came from man in the creation, so man comes from woman by birth. When he addresses one’s position in Christ, he shows mutuality. When he addresses role distinctions, he shows headship: God’s headship over Christ, Christ’s headship over man, man’s headship over woman. This hierarchy is absolutely necessary within the body of Christ for us to fulfill God’s plan for us on this earth.

The next passage that I would like to address is 1 Corinthians 14:33–38.

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Although liberal critics question the possible insertion of verses 34 and 35 of our passage that I just read, there is no evidence to substantiate this, because every canon has this passage. So the external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this passage being here. There are five options for interpreting verse 34.



10 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

I would like to read verse 34 once again: “Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says.”

The first offer is that Paul was forbidding women to ask questions. He said that this was explained in verse 35, “And if they desire to learn, then let them ask their husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

The second explanation is that Paul might have been prohibiting the use of tongues. Some consider the passage to be a prohibition of some form of inspired speech other than prophecy. Some have suggested that the ban is on the discerning of prophecies mentioned in verse 29. If you look at verse 29, it says, “And let two or three prophets speak, and let the other prophet pass judgment.” So some people say that this restriction on women was in the discerning of the prophecies. It is assumed in this model that women did prophesy; because you remember in the first passage in chapter 11, it said that a woman was to cover her head when she prayed and prophesied. We know that women had the gift of prophecy, and we know that they did prophesy. The tension is going to be set up here because now Paul appears to be saying that women were to keep silent. It is assumed, then, the basis that the woman did prophesy. But they are now being excluded from the weighing of the prophecies because it could possibly put them into an unbiblical position by sitting in authority over their own husbands. This is one suggestion.

The third offer is that Paul prohibited the talking because the Corinthian women were acting unruly. The most commonly held view, according to Gordon Fee, is that the passage is referring to some form of disruptive speech. The support is found for this in verse 35, that “if the women wish to learn anything, they should ask their own husbands at home.” Various scenarios are proposed from this, that the setting was something like the Jewish synagogue, with women on the one side and men on the other, and the women shouting out disruptive questions about what was being said in a prophecy or tongue. Or that they were asking questions of men other than their own husbands. Or that they were simply chattering so loudly that it had a disruptive effect.

The fourth explanation is that Paul was saying that the women were to be quiet. There is tension here in this passage, because Paul has just said that if a woman prays and prophesies, she should have “a sign of authority on her head” (1 Corinthians 11:5, 10). Many conservative theologians say that the silence cannot mean absolutely silent, or else Paul would have been contradicting himself.



11 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

One explanation has been given in that a woman could exercise her spiritual gift outside of the congregation, but there is no substantial evidence that this would have been possible. Others say that a woman could exercise her gift within the body; but if there was any question about how the prophecy was being evaluated, she was not to enter into this discussion. She could give the prophecy but not enter into the evaluation of that process.

I think that we can all see the tension that has developed from this. I think we have to also conclude that the silence here in 34 and 35 cannot mean absolutely silent, because it would be contradicting the passage we looked at before.

The third passage that I would like to look at is 1 Timothy 2:8–15. It says:

Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly; not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow at all for a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But the women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

I would like to begin this long passage by saying that in the original Greek text there were no sentence or chapter demarcations. Often we read into a particular text our own personal biases. We throw out what we don’t want. We cast off as culturally determined things that we don’t want to deal with; and tenaciously we hold onto a literal meaning of what we want to enforce. This is not to say that some things in Scripture are cultural and no longer applicable for our time and that other passages hold timeless principles which we are to hold onto. But it usually depends upon what camp a person is in as to what is held onto and what is thrown away. In looking at 1 Timothy 2:8, it says, “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.” According to William Hendriksen, this was a fit symbol of utter dependence on God and of humble expectancy. Many conservative Christians today shy away from this posture, because it usually is associated with a particular group of worshipers. Is this an adequate reason to turn aside from Paul’s admonition to men praying?



12 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

In 1 Timothy 2:9¬–10, it says, “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.”

Now Paul, here, is teaching how women were to present themselves within the congregation for worship. He was not telling them that they couldn’t braid their hair or wear jewelry or nice clothing, but that these things were not to be the focus of their attention, as they were the women of that day—and, I might add, to this day as well. Women in that culture would spend literally hours fixing their hair. They would braid through their hair pearls and jewels and elaborate designs. They dressed for show, somewhat like women do in our culture on Easter Sunday. They wanted to be noticed for their finery. Paul was addressing the issue of a woman’s heart before God, her attitude of worship, and her desire to serve God. He wasn’t telling her that she couldn’t wear pearls, and yet when we read this literally, we wouldn’t touch this verse because many pastors would have a difficult time asking all of the women in his congregation to stand up and take off all of their jewelry. Many pastors today wouldn’t touch this because they would offend the women in their congregations.

I have attended churches before where the main topic of conversation revolved around what women were wearing on that particular Sunday. I have also heard some women say that they stayed away from church because they didn’t have anything appropriate to wear. I have heard younger women state that the only reason they chose a more informal night service was so that they wouldn’t feel inferior to some other women in the way that they dressed. But is this a good reason for not addressing this subject?

The next verse in 1 Timothy 2:11 says, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” All of a sudden here is a verse to be taken literally and seriously. It is interesting that one segment of the church today says that lifting hands is cultural and not applicable, but women keeping silent is literal and binding. Another segment of our church says that lifting hands is applicable, but the silence of women was cultural. The crucial issue is the prohibition of women teaching. Dr. Ross states that Paul’s ruling against women teaching draws on the law, that is, the Genesis account of creation and the temptation and its results.



13 of 14

Lesson 03 of 24

What the apostle is doing in this section is making an analogical application, and that’s called a midrash from the text. A midrash from Jewish literature was taking a text and applying it to their own circumstances. We do a midrash constantly when we take a passage of Scripture and apply it to our own daily lives. That’s where we get into trouble sometimes: in the application. So when I say that that’s what the apostle Paul was doing here in this section—was making an analogy when he goes back to the Genesis account—that’s important; because he is not saying that the Genesis account is teaching what he’s trying to teach. He is just saying that he is applying it, because God is a God of order, and at creation He had a definite order. He created man first, and then He created woman. And so Paul, in his present passage here in 1 Timothy that we’re looking at in verse 11, when he says, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness,” he is going back to creation, and he is making a midrash.

The man was created first, and then woman. The implication of Paul’s use of the Genesis passage is that the order of creation should be preserved as well in the church, the new creation, as it were, especially now when there’s so much need for order. He is not saying that Genesis is teaching the superiority of the male over the female, nor that his prohibition on women teaching is expressed in Genesis. He is not saying that the Genesis account is teaching that women cannot teach. He is using, as I mentioned before, a midrash. It is an application by analogy. His ruling would stand as authoritative whether he connected it to creation or not, but he shows how his instruction harmonizes with the design of the Creator in this world.

Dr. Ross goes on to say that there are some who argue that by connecting the prohibition to creation, Paul is saying that women never can teach men anything anytime anywhere—or at least nothing biblical or spiritual. I have talked with people in past years who have this view, the view that a woman should not teach a man anything anytime anywhere. When I asked one particular man who was expounding this view, “At what age should a woman stop teaching a man?” he said, “Ten.” Now that was confusing to me, because I found that ten didn’t have any biblical base to it at all. I would have preferred hearing, say, the time that a young Jewish boy was declared to be a man at his bar mitzvah, or when a young man would go off to war. But that was not the case.

But Paul does not actually say that. He says that he does not permit a woman to teach in the assembly, and then he reasons that the instruction is in harmony with the order of creation. But if we accept such a sweeping prohibition, how can we reconcile God’s use of women down through the centuries to publish His Word


Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

14 of 14

New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1Lesson 03 of 24

publicly, to edify, to exhort, to instruct and comfort, whether by prophecy, oracle, song, celebration, or discipleship?

We’re going to get into these different definitions when we look at what women actually did in the Old Testament. We know that words of women in the Old Testament were actually inscripturated. When we look at Miriam and the women who sang the song of praise to God, those words were inscripturated, and so we have her words. We have the words of Hannah. We have the words of Huldah. We have many times notes in Scripture in which women actually did declare words that were used as Scripture. They are used for our edification.

The only area in which women did not function was in Israel’s priesthood. They did not make sacrifices, they did not burn the incense, and they did not teach the law in the sanctuary. This is a very understandable situation, because women could not be priests in the Old Testament. We’re going to probably see that this might be tied in with Paul’s restriction when he gets into the New Testament and says that women cannot be elders. Because what “priest” did in the Old Testament, “elders” did in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the priest could only take blood into the Holy of Holies that was sanctified blood. It was purified. For a woman, because of her menstrual cycle, she could not go into the sanctuary at certain times of her life. And because of this, it excluded her from the priesthood. And now Paul carries that ruling forward from the Old Testament to say that women should not teach or have authority in the local assembly of the church.

What we’re going to see in the verses that follow in our next lesson is that women had restrictions specifically because of the local body of believers. Now if we’re going to make an application, as I mentioned earlier, we have to determine what particular situation do we have in our day that would be comparable to this time in Paul’s day? We cannot just make a blanket statement, as I mentioned before, as some people have, that women cannot teach men anything anytime anywhere. We have to decide, when Paul is making restrictions, what are those restrictions?

We’re going to see in future lessons that his restrictions were the local assembly of the church. Now in our particular day, that would tie in with our Sunday services, in which we come together for a specific time and focus. If this is correct, then what Paul is going to address is that women should not have positions of leadership when the local body of believers come together for the specific purpose in the local assembly that they had.

In our next lesson, we’re going to continue with 1 Timothy 2:8–15. We will pick up beginning with verse 12.

Documents

New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1 · New Testament Passages and the Roles of Women, Part 1 Ministering to Women in the Church This is lecture number three: “New