๐๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ก? ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฒ?
One
of the continuing hotbeds of debate in evangelical circles today is the nature
and scope of leadership roles open to women in the church. Can a woman preach
God’s word? Can she teach an adult Bible class?
Teachings
of Jesus
We
have various incidents in the Gospels that illustrate Jesus’ appreciation of
women’s spiritual capability, intellectual capability, and ability to serve
Jesus. Jesus’ relationship with women contrasts sharply with Judaism’s view of
women. Women have a full share in the kingdom of God (Gal 3:28). But over
against this fact that women were not received into the circle of the twelve
and were not among the seventy who were sent out. Hence, Jesus did not annul
the regulations concerning the man-woman relationships ordained in the
creation.
It
should be right to say here that Jesus accorded women a new spiritual status
but never questioned the basic Old Testament pattern of roles for men and women
even in his ministry.
This
teaching, however, did not lead Jesus to repudiate either the traditional
family structure outright or, it would seem, the patriarchal framework that
existed to one degree or another in all the various Mediterranean cultures of
that day. Jesus' teachings on the matter of corban, honouring parents, divorce,
and children make it clear that He was not advocating a rejection of the
traditional family structure. If Mt. 5.27—32 and Jn 7.53—8.11 are any
indication, then Jesus reaffirmed the responsibility of the husband and male
leaders to be moral examples for the community. Jesus' choice of twelve men to
be leaders of His new community also leads one to think that He was attempting
to reform, not reject, the patriarchal framework under which He operated.
Certain
of Jesus' words and deeds, such as His teaching on the laws of uncleanness, His
healing of a woman on the Sabbath, and His willingness to converse with a
strange woman in public, while offensive to His fellow Jews, would probably not
have raised many eyebrows outside Jesus' native context. Then, too, Jesus'
attitude toward a woman's right to religious training and to be a disciple of a
religious leader, while no doubt shocking to Jews, would not have seemed
radical to many Romans or Greeks of that day.
Jesus
was attempting to reform, not reject, the patriarchal framework of His culture,
then it is understandable why Paul and other NT authors sought to redefine, not
reject, concepts of male headship and leadership in light of Christian or
biblical ideas (cf. especially Eph. 5.21-33, 'as the Church submits ... as
Christ loves'; 1 Cor. 11.3-12, 'in the Lord'; and 1 Pet. 3.6, The work of the
Spirit in women's lives led some of them to prophesy (Ac. 21.9). If the gift
gave a person a certain leadership status (cf. also 1 Cor. 12.28), then there
may be an integral connection between 1 Cor. 14.1 — 33a and 33b—36. Paul may be
exhorting women prophetesses in 1 Cor. 14.336— 36 to exercise their gifts in a
way that did not involve the violation of their husband's headship (cf. 1 Cor.
11.3-5,14.34-5).
It
is possible that the tensions in Paul's thought between the concept of male
headship and his willingness to allow women to exercise new roles in the
Christian community are tensions that were inherent in the attitudes and
teachings of Jesus and do not reflect, as some have suggested, tensions between
ideas drawn from Paul's non-Christian rabbinic past and theological concepts
that he had learned since becoming a Christian.
Teachings
of Paul (Basic Text Galatians 3:28 and 1 Cor 14:34)
Paul’s
silencing of women in 1 Cor 14:34 is consistent with Gal 3:28. It will be
concluded that Gal 3:28 and 1 Cor 14:34 cannot be contradictory because both
passages have a different meaning and function. Any charge of contradiction
must be argued based on Paul’s original meaning and not future (secondary)
applications.
Scholars
often make brief reference to Gal 3:28 (“no male and female”) in order to
challenge the prima facie meaning of 1 Cor 14:34. Occasionally, this brief
reference to Gal 3:28 does not fully consider the original context of Gal 3– 4.
If there is an issue of men having authority over women, then there could
potentially be an issue with anyone having authority over anyone else. Here,
Paul is seeking to show who are the children of God and offspring of Abraham
who receive the promise of the Spirit. This section is clearly about
justification by faith in Christ regarding salvation (e.g., Gal 3:6). The
reference to no male and female directly relates to the question of faith and
sonship in regard to receiving divine inheritance (Gal 3:23– 4:7). Salvation is
in view.
Paul
argues against “works of the law” (Gal 2:16), especially male circumcision
(5:2– 6, 11– 12; 6:12– 15). The issue of circumcision is the historical context
in order to understand why Paul would mention male and female. One should refer
to Gen 17:9– 14 in order to explain all three antitheses (Jew/ Greek, slave/
free, male/ female). Genesis 17:9– 14 refers to God’s words to Abraham about
every male born in his house or bought with his money being circumcised as a
sign of the covenant.
In
contrast to male circumcision, there is no male and female regarding Christians
being “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29). Being an
heir is clearly the immediate context of Gal 3:28. The language of “sons of
God” (3:26) implies an inheritance. Being “heirs according to promise” (3:29)
is a continuation of the statement about male and female in 3:28. Paul then
explains his reference to an heir (4:1) and how adoption as sons means one is
an heir through God (4:5– 7). Therefore, the male and female reference in Gal
3:28 must be interpreted in light of the inheritance of salvation. Reading Gal
3:28 within its immediate context of Gal 3:23– 4:7 makes the original context
of salvation abundantly clear.
There
are at least two problems with some discussions of Gal 3:28. The first problem
is many commentaries do not discuss Gal 3:28 within the literary context of Gal
3:23– 4:7. Instead commentaries often go directly to social implications. Some
simply go immediately to attacking another interpretation.
The
text clearly indicates that spiritual privileges come equally to men and women
and shows Christianity to have advanced beyond Judaism, yet this principle of
spiritual position and privileges does not mean the obliteration of all
differences between sexes. Further to use these words to imply that there can
be no subordination of women is to misunderstand Paul’s meaning. This passage
does not speak about male/female roles assigned in creation. Therefore,
although it affirms the equality of the sexes regarding life in Christ, it does
not annul, either in marriage or in church regulations, the difference
established in creation between the sexes.
While
acknowledging the meaning of the text to be that ethnic, national, racial,
social, and sexual differences do not determine spiritual standing It does not
deny the teaching of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 which forbids women to
teach and exert authority.
Here
the topical context is justification, standing before God, and not special
roles; parallel Scriptures (Col 3:9-11; 1 Cor 12:12-13) similar but not
identical pairs of terms lead to the conclusion that both male and female are
created in God’s image and united to Christ though the gift of the Spirit and
in saying analogically that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, Paul is
not an abolitionist.
The
norm for a woman’s role in public worship was and is to be silent, as taught in
1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. Apostle Paul laid down a universally normative
regulation that prohibits women from ruling and teaching men in the church.
These passages are not illustrations but commands; these commands are grounded
not in timebound, historically and culturally relative arguments that apply
only to Paul’s days and age, but in the way, God created man and woman to
relate to each other as male and female.
There
is nothing in the immediate literary context of Gal 3:28 that contradicts 1 Cor
14:34– 35. Paul did not contradict himself but made different points for
different contexts. A specific silencing of women in 1 Cor 14:34 is consistent
with Paul’s view of men and women in Gal 3:28 since each passage has its own
function and meaning. Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14:34 can only be claimed to
contradict Gal 3:28 by appealing to debatable applications. Scholars should no
longer cross-reference Gal 3:28 in order to contradict 1 Cor 14:34 in light of
the various views of Gal 3:28 itself. Scholars also will need to clarify if the
charge of contradiction regards the original meaning of Gal 3:28 and/ or a
particular application.
As
noted earlier, submission is a key-word in the Pastoral Epistles describing
women’s attitude toward their husband (Tit 2,5), children’s position toward
their father (1 Tim 3,4), slaves’ obedience to their masters (Tit 2,9) and the
deference of the community toward civil authorities (Tit 3,1). What links these
texts together is the hierarchical understanding of oikos, polis and ekklesia.
Against this background, it becomes obvious that submission in the context of
public worship characterises women’s manner of learning and implies their
subordinate status vis-a-vis men in the community, who are the superior sex and
holders of legitimate authority. It has been debated whether women are expected
to submit to all men in the community, or only to the legitimate leaders and
teachers. This way of asking the question may suggest a wrong alternative. The
station codes make it clear that in the household a woman has to submit to her
own husband. The issue here is that of relationships in the community, with
particular attention given to teaching as an expression of authority, but these
relations are defined with contemporary social expectations in mind. Therefore,
in this very context requires women to recognise that just as they are to
submit to their male kyrios (husband, father or other relevant male kin) in the
household, they are to show the same deference and submission to male authority
in the ekklesia.
Women
who teach men exercise illegitimate authority, regardless of whether they teach
heresy or not. The issue therefore is that women, because they are women, do
not have the right to teach men, as this would be an exercise of authority over
men and thus an illegitimate practice. women are mainly excluded from teaching
and offices involving authority for being what they are. The religious argument
is meant to justify the social, familial and ecclesial order that subordinates
women to men and excludes them from positions of authority. This theological
legitimation claims that the regulation ultimately reflects the order
instituted in creation. This was threatened in the fall because of the woman
and later on because of women usurping authority through teaching.
References:
Alex
S. Carr - Paul, Women, and the Meaning of Silence_ A Contextual Reading of 1
Corinthians 14_34-35-Peter Lang Publishing (2023)
Ben
Witherington Iii, Women in The Ministry of Jesus, Cambridge University Press,
1998
Bruce
W. Winter - Roman Wives, Roman Widows_ The Appearance of New Women and the
Pauline Communities-Eerdmans Pub Co (2003)
Gillian
Beattie - Women and Marriage in Paul and His Early Interpreters-Continuum
(2005)
Kevin
Giles - The Headship of Men and the Abuse of Women_ Are They Related In Any
Way_-Wipf and Stock Publishers (2020)
Korinna
Zamfir - Men and Women in the Household of God_ A Contextual Approach to Roles
and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles-Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2013)
Stanley
J. Grenz, Denise Muir Kjesbo - Women in the Church_ A Biblical Theology of
Women in Ministry-InterVarsity Press (1995)
Stanly
N Gundry (Ed), Two Views on Women in Ministry, Zondervan, 2005
Tatha
Wiley - Paul and the Gentile Women_ Reframing Galatians-Bloomsbury Academic
(2005)
Comments