SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

LESSON FOUR•

MAN AND WOMAN: ROLES IN THE CHURCH

1: SYNOPSISSince the church is an extended family, the complementary roles of husband and wife in the family are expressed in complementary ministries in the church.

2: MALE LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH (1 TIM 2:8-15)

Why do most churches not apply this passage?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS:1. Women are not permitted to teach under certain circumstances.

The circumstances at Ephesus included false teachers, domineering women, the absence of church leaders and the prominence of feminist cult worship. It is argued that these unique factors motivated these specific instructions which are not to be applied to the church in general (1 Cor 7:1-2; 27-31).

But nothing in the text itself would suggest limiting the application and the text grounds its teaching on God’s created design for man and woman which is not limited to a certain time or culture. To dismiss this clear command without support from the text itself would be to undermine the authority of Scripture.

2. Women are not permitted to teach in a certain way

This view regards the primary issue being one of “authority.” Paul is concerned with an excessive use of authority and is therefore only prohibiting a domineering, overly authoritative form of teaching.

But this is not what the text actually says. Paul uses a common word for “teach” and doesn’t modify it with any adjectives indicating that he had a particular form

i

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

of teaching in mind. He expressly says that he doesn’t permit a woman to “teach or have authority” so both teaching and authority are in view

3. Women are not permitted to teach certain content

The context concerns teaching in the church and therefore only authoritative doctrine is in view.

But all biblical teaching comes with authority and includes doctrine.

4. Women are not permitted to teach certain individuals

The direct object of the two verbs “teach” and “exercise authority” are “men.” Paul is thus prohibiting women from teaching or exercising authority over men. The rest of chapter 2 clearly has the church community in mind which would limit the application of the text to teaching the Bible and exercising authority in the context of the local church.

What forms of teaching are valid for women?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A NOTE ABOUT PAUL’S REASONS (VS 13-15) Adam was formed first indicating the priority or headship of man over woman (13)

Eve was deceived rather than Adam indicating the negative effects of role reversal. It is unlikely that Paul was suggesting that women are more prone to deception than men otherwise they should not be permitted to teach at all (14).

Vs 15 is difficult to interpret but it seems to be an expansion/ clarification of the statement in vs 14 and form a conclusion to the entire discussion. Though woman led man into sin, she still had an essential role in God’s plan of salvation as the one through whom the Saviour would be born. Women continue to work our their salvation in their role as homemakers rather than teachers and leaders in the church.

ii

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

OTHER OBJECTIONS By saying “I do not permit,” Paul is offering personal preference rather than an

authoritative command. However, this Greek word carries the force of a command. Vs 11 commands women to learn in silence which is closely connected to vs 12 instructing them not to teach. Furthermore, Paul would not make such an extensive appeal to creation order if he were only making a suggestion.

What about other passages such as Gal 3:28, Acts 18:26 and 1 Cor 11:5? We cannot use other passages to nullify the teaching of the present passage.

What about the instructions of vs 9? Why do we ignore those and yet apply vs 12 literally?

3: PRINCIPLES FOR APPLYING A BIBLICAL TEXTWhile discussions around 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 are partly about what the text means, they are largely around how the text should be applied to our modern context, if at all.

Every biblical text has only one correct, historical meaning but it may have many modern day implications and applications. Correctly applying a biblical text involves 2 important steps:

1. Understand what the text meant and how it was applied in its original context.

2. Derive the abiding biblical principle of the text and apply it appropriately to each modern context

Note: Biblical principles remain constant while the specific application/cultural expression of those principles will change over time.

In many cases, it is relatively easy to identify the biblical principle and to distinguish it from cultural expressions. For example:

Romans 16:16 “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.” In principle, fellowship between brothers in Christ is to be warm and loving and is to be expressed in some physical, tangible way. The exact form may readily be replaced to give appropriate cultural expression to the principle and we may therefore apply this text by giving one another a “hearty hug” or a “warm handshake.” In certain cultures, a kiss might even be an inappropriate expression of the biblical principle.

1 Timothy 2:8 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness- with

iii

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

good works.” This text mandates the kind of conduct which is fitting for the Christian community, applying it to each gender specifically. Men are to worship in holiness and unity while women are to worship in modesty and propriety. Men are to avoid being distracted by disagreements and women are to void being a distraction through their ostentation or sensual dress. Specific examples are mentioned (braided hair, gold, pearls, lifting of hands) to illustrate how the principle was to be applied by its original audience. The text is not seeking to limit application to these specific expressions of the principle, neither to make these specific cultural expressions permanently binding. In seeking to correctly apply this text, we must determine the abiding biblical principle and express it in a form appropriate to our culture and context.

o To clarify: Is 1) Paul mandating that prayer be offered in holiness and unity, or is 2) Paul mandating that prayer be offered by the lifting of hands, or is 3) Paul mandating both 1) and 2) – the underlying principle and the external form?

o Does “braided hair” signify the same thing in our modern culture as it did in the biblical culture? If not, is there an equivalent modern form of this ancient practice? Some understanding of the biblical culture will be needed in order to correctly apply the text to our modern context.

Note: In the above, we are not seeking to ignore the text, or dismiss the text on cultural grounds, but to appropriately apply the underlying truth/ principle to our modern context.

Footnote: A “principle” may be defined as “a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived.” For a more extensive discussion about applying the biblical text, the following is recommended: Michael Fabarez, Preaching that Changes Lives, chapter 4, pg 37-53.

4: HEAD COVERINGS (1 COR 11:2-16)

THE FLOW OF THE ARGUMENTThis passage explains how men and women should relate and participate in corporate worship. John Piper explains the logic of Pauls argument in this passage: “Verse 3 gives the basic premise—Christ is man’s head, man is woman’s head, God is Christ’s head. From this Paul infers in verses 4-6a that to cover a man’s head while he is praying or prophesying is shameful, but to leave a woman’s head *un*covered while she prays or prophesies is shameful. On the basis of this inference, Paul issues a command in verse 6b: “Let her wear a veil [be covered].

iv

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

Then in verses 7-10 he supports this imperative by saying that a man ought not to cover his head (v. 7a) but a woman ought to have a veil (a sign of authority) on her head (v. 10). This oughtness is derived in verses 7b–9 from three facts in Genesis 1 and 2: 1) man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man (v. 7b); 2) man (was not created) from woman but woman for the sake of man (v. 9).

Then verses 11–12 warn against a misunderstanding. Men should not be arrogant nor women disconsolate, for both are indispensible and interdependent and sustained by God. As woman was (created) from man, so man (is born) through woman. The headship of man (v. 3) expressed by the headcovering of woman (vs. 6b, 10) does not justify male self-sufficiency or female insignificance.

So nature is a teacher for Paul in that it generally inclines man and woman to feel shame when they abandon the basic cultural symbols of masculinity and femininity. So verses 13–15 confirm the apostle’s earlier point that women should avail themselves of the current custom (of headcoverings) which in their day signified an essential truth about the difference between man and woman, namely, the man’s headship and the woman’s submission to it.

(Piper, Desiring God, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/creation-culture-and-corinthian-prophetesses )

The following is adapted from an article by Daniel B Wallace (https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today)

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS:1. This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has

handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.

2. The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair. (1 Cor 11:15)

3. The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:

The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service.

The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly.

4. The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.

v

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

1: LIMITED CUSTOM/ CULTURAL PRACTICE Undermines biblical authority. If you dismiss one practice as cultural, then can dismiss

just about everything. There must be an indication in the text that this is only intended for the time.

Vs 2: (2 Thess 2:15; 3:5) Paul praises them for keeping the traditions as they have been handed down. This is the practice in all the churches so evidently an authoritative, general practice is in mind (1 Cor 11:16).

2: THE COVERING IS HER HAIR (VS 15) Seems to be plainly supported by vs 15

If “covering” = “hair” then vs 4 would require men to shave their head which is clearly not being advocated. Paul is not saying that it is dishonourable for men to pray with their head covered with hair.

If “covering” = “long hair” then vs 6 doesn’t make sense: “If a woman will not cover her head (with long hair), then she should cut her hair short.” This amounts to saying, “If a woman will not have long hair, she should have short hair,” which is senseless.

The argument from vs 2-14 concerns head coverings, not hairstyles. Paul merely alludes to the length of hair to indicate that men and women were by nature created to look different. This difference is rooted in male headship and should thus be reflected in corporate worship in the church.

Vs 15 uses a different Greek word for “covering” than vs 6,7 which may indicate that he is using the term “covering” in a difference sense.

The covering in vs 6,7,10 is a sign of “authority” and submission. How is long hair itself a symbol of submission? Why is Paul specific about a women only wearing a “covering” while praying or prophesying if he intends her merely to have long hair?

3: A REAL HEAD COVERING WHICH SHOULD BE WORN TODAY Exegetically the easiest, but culturally/practically the hardest to defend.

o Vs 3-9 an argument from Scripture/creation order

o Vs 10 an argument from angelology (which we don’t fully understand)

o Vs 12-15 an argument from nature (common practice in the culture)

o Vs 16 an argument from church practice/tradition

vi

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

o Paul therefore presents arguments based on the nature of God, the nature of man and woman, angelology, general revelation, and church practice.

The text appears to relate specifically to when a women prays or prophecies publicly (4-5). When a woman appears to be taking up a leading role in the church service, it is to be clear that she is still under the authority of man.

This is also suggests that an external symbol of authority is being advocated since a woman couldn’t change her hairstyle during the service, but could put on a covering if she was going to publicly participate in the service.

Vs 15 is continuing the argument of vs 14 which indicates that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair (to look like women) but it is not a disgrace for women to have long hair. In fact, long hair is part of what beautifies or shows the glory of women.

4: AN EQUIVALENT MODERN SYMBOL Is Paul mandating 1) That women should be visibly in submission to men while leading

certain aspects of corporate worship 2) That women wear a visible symbol to indicate their submission to men while leading in prayer/prophesy during corporate worship 3) Women should wear a veil/covering on their heads while praying or prophesying or a combination of 1) and 3) above?

Mac Arthur remarks in his commentary on 1 Corinthians: “It is the principle of women’s subordination to men, not the particular mark or symbol of that subordination, that Paul is teaching in this passage. The apostle is not laying down a universal principle that Christian women should always worship with their heads covered.” (But the text itself is addressing the practice rather than the principle only)

Consistent application would suggest that we find a suitable modern equivalent to the biblical veil/head covering rather than merely adopting the external form especially since we are not even sure what the head covering was.

In the light of the fact that a head covering has little meaning in our modern culture and carries with it a certain sense of shame, Daniel Wallace remarks, “Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfil the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.”

Conclusion: In the light of the uncertainty about how to apply this text and the lack of a clear cultural equivalent, it is probably better to allow conscience to dictate to individual believers rather than to mandate one particular form of application above other valid possibilities. As a

vii

SUNDAY SEMINARY: Gender Equality and Roles

April 2017

minimum, we should be careful to visibly maintain male headship in our corporate gatherings while allowing women to participate appropriately.

What are possible equivalent forms in Western Culture?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE: ABOUT MAN/WOMEN VS HUSBAND/WIFE The Greek terms can refer most broadly to men/women in general, or specifically to

husbands/wives. The context must indicate which is intended.

In vs 3a “man” is clearly intended in general, which would make it unlikely that Paul is narrowing down the definition in the second part of the verse to “husband” without any indication. The same argument could be applied through vs 4-15 – it is more consistent to retain the same meaning throughout, than to arbitrarily switch between a narrower and broader meaning.

Is Paul only wanting married women to wear a symbol of authority, or women in general? The context and flow of the argument seems to be addressing male headship in the church rather than the husbands headship over his wife.

However, if the understood custom he was addressing applied only to married women, then obviously this would have been understood by the original audience and should be “read into the text” as ESV footnote is suggesting. Is there sufficient consensus/ clarity about this ancient practice to do this with confidence? The various English renderings suggests not.

viii