Women and Sonship
"We Are All Now Sons of God"
CONTENTS:
FOREWORD
In the years since the original writing of this paper, some additional arguments have arisen in connection to this subject, some concerning points made in the paper. Let's address these arguments here.
Why address the question of sonship at all? We know that in the resurrection we will be spirit, with a composition like unto wind, as genderless as the wind: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). We can infer from the following that in the spirit we will have no gender: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (Mark 12:25)
So why the question of sonship? Because many adults spend most of their spiritual lives as members of some sort of church. The issue of sonship solves the problem of "gender restrictions" imposed within an organized church. Women closely involved with churches often learn over time that some areas of service are refused to them simply because they are not male. The question is: "Is this refusal Scripturally correct?" For anyone working independently the issue takes on a different slant: In this case, the individual bears sole responsiblity for discovering his or her own spiritual gifts and administering them in the best way possible. Now the question becomes: "What limits should I observe?" We will find that both questions share the same answer.
Perhaps this understanding will forestall the question often asked next: "How can an all male church (spiritually) marry a male Christ? Doesn't this tacitly endorse homosexuality?" This question is ludicrous. Are there not now physical males in God's church? Won't these males be part of the church (or Bride) which marries the Lamb (Yahshua) - Rev. 19:7-9? There is only one resolution to this manufactured problem: an all female church, both physically and spiritually, begotten of God as daughters. Unfortunately, a church with this composition would be committing incest with Yahshua should they marry - This is the trouble with forcing a physical interpretation upon spiritual symbolism.
The answer to our question lies in what has been stated above: God is trying to convey to physical beings a specific aspect of a spiritual relationship, in terms they can understand. The assembly is individually composed of spiritually begotten beings, presented for our understanding in a Father/son relationship with God. Once these beings are born into the spirit, they "marry" or unite with the Lamb, becoming one with Him in spirit even as a husband and wife "shall be one flesh". While we are physical we maintain a husband/wife relationship with Yahshua: He is the Head of the family, the protector, with final authority. We, the assembly, are submissive to Him, serving our Lord, giving Him respect, love, and fidelity. The problem arises when we mistakenly try to mingle physical aspects with a strictly spiritual relationship.
Finally, the reader may notice that there is a certain amount of attention given in this article to "offices" - deacon, elder, apostle, minister, etc. To reiterate: These are service positions, holding no authority, and are not to be sought as positions of power or rule. No one in God's assembly needs the permission of any other person to serve Him in any capacity. If any assembly refuses a member service - on any grounds - or if any member feels compelled to ask permission to serve in any way, then there is something seriously wrong there which cries out for a close examination of motives and priorities.
And so, let each reader examine his or her reactions to the above, and to what follows, in the light of God's word.
OPENING
The question of women and their role in God's church is 2,000 years old now; as it pertains to us in this day and time, it began with the advent of the new Testament church. The seeds of truth concerning women and sonship are interspersed throughout the New Testament, including the four Gospels. It is only now that the time is right for us to sift out this truth in the fashion well-proven with time and applied before now to other Scriptural subjects:
"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." (Isa. 28:10)
God has given us human reasoning and logic for this purpose. As He is a God of logic and love, these are the principles we must apply in order to ascertain His truth and His will for us, His children. This truth should be set forward in pursuit of His will and for the glory and peace of mind of those who, until now, have struggled under the burden of man-made and man-imposed limitations. Our prayer is that this will be accepted for the truth that it is, embraced, and spread as is the rest of God's truth.
The Question
Is there a woman anywhere who has not wondered inside herself at some time what God's purpose was for her, considering the attitudes of many churches regarding women and their service within those churches? Isn't it natural to ask oneself, "Why did God give me this brain, this desire to serve, this ability to speak, to teach, to lead, to organize, etc., if it is unacceptable to Him for me to use these gifts within the confines of His own assembly?" What woman has not secretly branded the apostle Paul as a chauvinist, a woman hater, or simply as inconsistent at one time or another? How many women have struggled in their hearts to reconcile their faith in God with what seem to be outright anti-women rules given forth with the sanction of that God? And how many women have rebuked themselves for their lack of faith, bending over backwards in their effort to comply with Scripture and not follow what they feel is a desperate wish that things were different? How many women have simply acquiesced to what they secretly believe is unfair and wrong, hoping that "things will be different in the resurrection"?
The purpose of this paper is to show that it is not unacceptable to God for a woman to serve Him, in whatever capacity is required of her, according to the talents He has bestowed upon her. There is a wealth of Scriptural grounding for this statement and this is our main goal: to discern the truths of God according to Scripture and to accept them, no matter how new and/or alien they might be to us at first due to our past religious experience. We are bound by our profession of faith and obedience to God to comply with His word regarding us. Let us now set forth a series of truths:
SONSHIP
In Romans 8:14, 15 (NAS) we read, "For all who are being led by the Spirit of god, these are the sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'"
This scripture is one of many which specifically refers to the members of the church as sons of God. Our first impulse might be to assume that this really means "children", but this is not so. The word used here in the Greek specifically refers to male offspring, i.e., sons. Why? Because the passage deals specifically with the concept of a Father/son relationship. In Galatians 4:4-7 (NAS) we see the same reference: "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God."
These passages are addressed to the entire assembly, not just to the men in the assembly. God has begotten all of His children as sons, and for a reason. The entire issue of sonship is a deep and complex one which as been addressed more completely elsewhere; however the concept is easily understood by anyone with a basic familiarity with Scripture. Rather than go into great detail, we'll look here at the obvious elements only.
The relationship of father to son is a unique one. The bond between fathers and sons is acknowledged as special and important by psychologists and laymen everywhere. While this does not belittle the relationship between fathers (or mothers) and daughters, we can all see that the relationships are different from each other. Also unique are the rights of sons, especially firstborn sons. To them belong the rights of inheritance and leadership within a family once the father is gone.
In Hebrews 12:22, 23 (NAS) we are told "...you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God...to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven..." This establishes our status before God and, in tandem with Galatians 4:7, explains why we are heirs and co-heirs with Yahshua as is stated in Romans 8:17. Now we can see that the question of sonship is exceedingly important to us as members of God's church. One truth we rely on is that we - all of us - are heirs to the promises of God.
One simple support for the fact that we are all sons of God, no matter what our physical makeup now, is that we are all part of the body of the Christ. Yahshua was male on this earth. He and the Father are one (John 10:3), and the Father is revealed to us a just that: a father, male. So if we have the Messiah in us (Col. 1:17), then spiritually we must also be male, which is obviously necessary in order to be called sons. Elementary perhaps, but logical.
Also, Galatians 3:26-28 (NAS) says, "For you are all sons of God through faith in the Christ Yahshua. For all of you who were baptized into the Christ have clothed yourselves with the Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in the Christ Yahshua." Although this passage speaks very well for itself in this translation, it is interesting that Bullinger's Companion Bible renders it "male and female", as does the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. This would imply that there is only one of the two genders present rather than neither. If this interpretation is true, it must apply to the fact that we are all spiritually begotten as sons, not neuters.
As we can see from the structure and phrasing of these and other passages, we are all now sons of God, today. It does not say that we "will be" sons, but that we "are". As everyone knows, once a child is conceived, its gender is determined and it is either male or female. The same goes with us a children of God. He has engendered us and we are all sons now. As such, we are all equal, with equal rights and with an equal relationship to Him as sons. If this is so, then there is (and has been for 2,000 years) a major misinterpretation of many scriptures dealing with women and their role and service within the church.
Let's look at the most controversial passages and arguments dealing with these misinterpretations now.
______________________________
WOMEN AND THE CHURCH
Until now, almost without exception, many women have been severely restricted in their options for service within their assemblies. Women have been refused the right to render opening and closing prayers during services, they have been refused access to the pulpit, they have been refused the right to openly teach (except when teaching children or perhaps each other), and they have rarely been allowed into any leadership positions in the church. Why? What are the arguments and scriptures used to uphold these restrictions on women? Briefly, there are the main arguments put forth:
The Fatherhood of God
The Creation Order
Headship/Subordination
The view that only men were appointed as apostles
The view that only men were ordained as elders and leaders in the early church
The "silence rule" imposed in I Cor. 14:34 & 35
The passage in I Tim. 2:11-15 regarding restrictions on women teaching men
Let's examine each of these in turn and seek the truth or falsehood of each.
This point was brought up in part earlier in this article. As it is addressed more fully later on, together with headship/subordination, suffice it to say that no one with the desire to follow the truth in Scripture will question the fact that God has been presented to us time and again as a Father, and therefore male. While there is no argument against this, it has been shown above that this simple fact does not automatically preclude females from relating with our Father just as males do and therefore freely serving Him as sons as well.
There are those who say that because Adam was formed first, Eve was automatically subject to him and that, by extension, all women are automatically subject to all men. They will also argue that because Adam was given the task of naming the animals (and incidentally Eve), that he was somehow given exclusive authority over all. The reasoning behind this is bewildering. Similarly bewildering are the arguments that he was given complete authority because he was given the initial instructions concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and that because the name of mankind - adam - was given to the man, he had complete authority. These arguments wholly ignore the fact that Adam, because he was created first, was the only one there to name the animals and Eve and to receive the instructions about the tree. They also ignore the simple logic which says that as the prototype for mankind, Adam would almost necessarily bear the name of the collective.
The most important point ignored is that although Adam was formed first, in fact Adam and Eve were created at the same time. Initially "adam" - mankind - was created. Then Eve was formed from Adam - from his body, not from another different blob of clay. In essence, Eve was cloned from Adam, carrying the same DNA structure and identical to him in every respect but form. In much the same way as biscuit dough is created and then biscuits are formed - all identical in substance, only differing in shape and order of formation - so were Adam and Eve created and formed. The main difference between the two was that Adam was male and Eve was female.
In Genesis 1:26-28, God said, "'Let Us make man (mankind) in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'"
It is very apparent from this passage that in the creation, God created Adam and Eve as equals, both to rule the earth, both blessed, both created in His image as mankind. The question of creation order as a basis for limiting women's service within the assembly is not valid when viewed in this light.
What is meant by headship and subordination as regards men and women and the assembly? This concept undoubtely originated with the Fall, as stated in Genesis 3:16: "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.'" We can clearly see that this statement was made in the context of marriage and is applicable only to husbands and wives in the circumstances of marriage. It cannot in any conceivable way be extended to say that because of this statement all women are subject to all men, yet proponents of this concept will bring forth the above passage, together with Ephesians 5:22-23 and I Corinthians 11:7-23, to try to support enforcement of this concept in their churches today.
A careful reading of Ephesians 5:22-23 will prove that the concept of headship/subordination is meant to be applied only within a marriage: man to wife or the Christ to the assembly. There can be no argument against a wife being subject to her own husband, even as there can be no argument against a husband loving his wife as he loves his own body. The extension of this concept is clearly applied to the Christ and His assembly. There is no suggestion here that all women in the assembly are to be subject to all men in the assembly, yet that is what is advocated by those who support the subordination of women in church. Once again something very basic is ignored: all of the women in the church are not married to all of the men in the church. The church is to be married to Yahshua the Christ - all the church, both male and female - and therefore all are to be subject to Him alone. The argument of headship/subordination within the assembly is clearly not valid in light of this fact and is not provable with this passage.
As for I Cor. 11, the operative phrase there is "...neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (verse 9). This is an obvious reference to marriage. Were all women created for all men? Of course not. As this passage goes on to say, "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" (NAS). This should be proof enough that as far as God is concerned both are equal. There is no basis for human headship within a church here.
Finally, as stated before, the only headship in the assembly rests in Yahshua the Christ: "...even as the Christ is the Head of the church: and He is the Saviour of the body" (Eph. 5:23). No person in any church can claim "headship" over another, because the identity of our collective Head has already been established. No one can claim that God the Father being presented as male gives men the exclusive status as "heads" of the church as a sort of type or example of Him. This is patently absurd and unScriptural to boot. There should be no need for a human figure to stand in as an example of God in His own assembly.
Many people will hold that since Yahshua only appointed men as apostles, a precedent was set which should be followed to this day. Leaving behind the fact that there are no apostles in any church at this time, let us address this: There were also no Gentiles or slaves appointed as apostles. Why? Simply because Yahshua was sent to the house of Israel - "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5, 6). "...He answered and said, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel'" (Matt. 15:24). In order to reach those He was sent to, Yahshua would naturally utilize the "tools" they would be most likely to respond to and accept - Jewish men. To send a Gentile, a slave, or a female would have been to outrage those He was trying to reach. After Yahshua's death and resurrection, the church as still trying to reach the Jews (Israel). Only in Acts13:46 do we see the outright rejection of the Jews as a primary target of salvation: "...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Again, in chapter 18:6 - "...Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." It would be ridiculous to believe that Gentiles and slaves were forever excluded from service in the church simply because none of them were initially appointed as apostles. It is just as ridiculous to believe that of women.
Also note that in Romans 16:7, Paul mentions Junia - a woman - in addition to Andronicus: Junia who is "of note among the apostles." The NIV renders it, "They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in the Christ before I was." The Interlinear Bible reads, "... noted among the apostles..." The wording implies that Andronicus and Junia were actually apostles themselves and well thought of as members of that group. Although some translations render the name "Junias" with the masculine ending, it is important to note that there is no historical documentation of that name appearing in the masculine form. When it appeared, the name was feminine in all cases: Junia. All of this gives good support to the idea that there was at least one female apostle, destroying in one stroke the argument of "men only as apostles."
Men Only As Elders and Leaders:
This is a far from firm point for those who use it against women in leadership positions in church. In fact, the only two people specifically claiming the position of elder were Peter (I Peter 5:1) and John (II & III John). In all other places the position is applied generally, without limiting the station to a particular gender. If we look at I Tim. 5:2, the word used there for "elder woman" is the same word in the Greek as is translated elsewhere "elder", with only gender indication added.
If we understand that the worlds "elder" and "overseer" are synonymous (which can be proven by examining both Acts 20:17 and 20:28), we can go to I Timothy 3:1 to establish an interesting point: the office of bishop is the same as that of overseer. The word in the Greek is the same for both. According to Bullinger's Companion Bible, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, The New International Translation, and the Jewish New Testament, I Tim. 3:1 should not be translated gender-specifically: it should read "if any one" or something similar. If the position of elder or bishop were truly gender specific, it would follow that Paul would have used the specific word "man" and not the general term "one" or "person" when he refers to them. There is not enough strength in these passages to support refusing those positions to women.
This is true also of the position of deacon. I Tim. 3:11 is better rendered "Even so the woman [should be] grave...", implying that women held the office of deacon. That this is true is supported by Romans 16:1 & 2, where Phebe is acknowledged as a deacon - translated here "servant" from the exact same word translated elsewhere as "deacon". Phebe is spoken of as a "succorer of many", including Paul, so we surely know she had an active role in the assembly.
See also the following examples of women referred to as leaders or shown in leadership roles in the church:
In Acts 18:24-28 it clearly shows Priscilla joined with Aquila in teaching Apollos, which clearly contradicts the present restriction on women teaching men. There is no indication of disapproval of this: on the contrary, it is portrayed as having been profitable to the church at that time.
In Romans 16:3 Priscilla is spoken of on equal terms with Aquila as a "fellow-laborer" or "fellow-worker" with Paul.
In I Cor. 11:5, the passage reads "...every woman that prayeth or prophesieth..." Women were praying and prophesying: obviously this was public prayer and prophesying because otherwise why address the subject at all? Personal prayer is just that - personal - and requires no instruction as to deportment or presentation. He that prophesies "...speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort...he that prophesieth edifieth the church" (I Cor. 14:3 & 4). There can be no edification if the prophet speaks only to him- or herself, therefore these women must have been speaking in public.
Philippians 4:2 & 3 names Euodias and Syntyche, who "labored with me (Paul) in the gospel..." The NIV translation reads "...who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel..." The rendering in the Jewish New Testament is "...for they have worked hard proclaiming the Good News with me..." This offers a good possibility that these women were evangelists, as was the woman at the well in John 4:7-29.
These, in conjunction with the points made concerning the issue of "elder women" in I Tim. 5:2, point to the fact that women were an integral part of the workings of the New Testament church and served equally with men in all ways.
In order to gain an understanding of the passage in I Cor. 14 beginning in verse 34, we must go back a little in that book to chapter 6. Understanding as we do that the original manuscripts had no punctuation, we know that the translators simply inserted punctuation where they felt necessary. If we look to the NIV and the Jewish New Testament translations we see that the phrases "All things are lawful" and "Meats for the belly and the belly for meats" in I Cor. 6:12 & 13 are rendered in quotes, showing that they were popular adages or slogans being used in Paul's time. In both cases Paul is clearly quoting these sayings in order to refute them.
If Paul was quoting slogans in chapter 6, why couldn't he have been doing the same in verses 34 & 35 of chapter 14? Reading with this in mind, we see,
"[You say] 'Let your women keep silence in the churches: 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 any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.' What? came the world of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"
This is Paul's classic approach, to pose a rhetorical question or situation and then reply to it with a vehement negative or a question of his own (see Rom. 6:1 & 2, 11:1; I Cor. 6:1-3, 9:1, etc.) With this understanding the passage suddenly becomes more clear: there were some, even then, who were attempting to prevent women from participating fully within the assembly, and Paul rebukes that attitude and the statements they were making to support it. He reminds them that it is God's decision as to who speaks the truths He sends to the assembly. Any attempt to silence women given those truths and to limit their efforts to learn was wrong then, just as it is now. It should also be pointed out that the "law" about women not speaking referred to in verse 34 appears nowhere in the Bible. Many cross-references cite Genesis 3:16, but this is a false connection since this verse deals exclusively with women and marriage, and has nothing to do with silence or activity outside the marriage.
This passage is used continually to exclude women from teaching or holding "authority" positions in a church. If we go back to verse 8 and read to the end of the chapter, it seems on the face of it that there is an inconsistency in thought in this passage. Paul begins with instructing men on how to pray, goes on to address women and how they dress and act, then is presumed to have jumped to the subject of church, ordering that women learn in silence, neither teaching nor "usurping authority over the man." Finally Paul talks about Adam and Eve, the creation order, and childbearing. How can we accept this passage as it is usually interpreted when it flies in the face of Gal. 3:28, the fact that God is no respecter of persons, the fact that Priscilla helped to teach Apollos, that Phebe was a deacon, that Paul spoke repeatedly of the women who were fellow-laborers in the Gospel with him, etc.? How do we deal with this apparent contradiction in Scripture?
The key to this lies in the multiple meanings of some of the Greek words used here, as well as the context in which this passage was written.
The basic meaning of the word translated here as "men" in verse 8 is "husbands". The word translated "women" is commonly rendered elsewhere as "wives". "Silence" essentially means stillness - i.e., quietness or peace. The pronoun translated "she" in verse 15 can also be rendered "they". The word translated "saved" also means "do well" or "protected", and the essential meaning of "childbirth" is parenthood or producing children. Most importantly, the phrase "usurp authority over" is an unusual phrase, used nowhere else in Scripture. The literal meaning given in Strong's Concordance is "to act of oneself", from the prefix "auto", meaning self, and an obsolete root meaning to work: it literally means to be a "self worker", or to work or act independently of others. "Nor" can also be rendered "not even."
The context in which this passage was written is just as important as the alternate meanings of the words used in it. Timothy was in the city of Ephesus when Paul wrote this letter to him. The people there were dedicated to the worship of Diana, a goddess purported to be the universal mother of all creation. It follows that women would figure prominently in the worship of this goddess. Being brought up in this kind of society, many of the women there would probably feel comfortable taking an active, assertive role in their religion. With this in mind, we can assume that Paul was addressing husbands and wives and some kind of discord that had arisen in the church at Ephesus concerning their proper conduct within the assembly and in the family. From the context it seems obvious that the wives were overstepping their boundaries.
Paul's epistle to the Ephesians seems to uphold the idea that there was some confusion there between believing husbands and wives about whether their roles within the marriage had changed after their conversions. Notice how in chapter 5 Paul gives express detailed instructions to both husbands and wives, addressing wives first, on how to treat each other in the marriage. No other epistle has such detailed teaching on this subject, which leads us to believe that there was a particular problem with the Ephesians which he was addressing and that the problem centered on the wives.
If we consider all of the above together, a new sense arises from the passage. Beginning in verse 8 Paul tells husbands to pray everywhere "without wrath or doubting (dispute)". He tells the wives to adorn themselves modestly, with good works as "becometh women professing godliness." He tells the wives to learn in silence, i.e., stillness or peace, "with all subjection (to their husbands)." Then addressing the question of what is seemly behaviour between husbands and wives, Paul says, "But I do not permit a wife to teach (others to be), nor even to act (as if) independent of the husband, but to be at peace (with him)."
With this reading we see a binding thought for the rest of the passage: some wives were "acting of themselves", that is, working independently of their husbands, perhaps zealously pursuing their own spiritual work while leaving their husbands to follow along and fend for themselves and their households. It seems that these women were even teaching others to follow their example. Carried away with enthusiasm over their conversion and freedom of service within the church, they were abusing the liberty available to them and neglecting an equally important service in their own homes. This is especially plausible considering how many people, both men and women, misunderstood the liberty available to them in the New Testament church and ended up in sin (see I Cor. 5:1-2, 6:11-15, etc.).
Paul's appeal to the creation order - which gives the husband the leadership of the household while assigning the woman the role of homemaker - carries through with this idea. In verse 14 he tells us that Eve was fully deceived, but Adam was not. In spite of this Adam followed Eve into disobedience of Yahweh's orders, and both were punished for this disobedience. Perhaps some of the husbands in Ephesus were docilely allowing their wives to neglect their families even though they knew it was wrong, not wanting to interfere with their service to the church. The examples Paul uses are powerful in this context. he reminds both husbands and wives of their proper responsibilities within the family and warns of the risk that both take in shirking those responsibilities.
Finally, Paul says, "Notwithstanding they shall do well in parenting, if they abide in faith and charity and holiness with self-control." Doesn't this clearly tell us that when parents set the proper example for their children, with both husband and wife fulfilling their God-given responsibilities as servants of God, they will do well as parents? The husband is the head of the household, with the wife submitting to his leadership. No matter what liberty women find in God's church, they must not let the use of that liberty disrupt the marital structure, because the marriage should be a living example of the ideal relationship between Yahshua and His assembly. Human marriage is a very simplified but easily grasped symbol of a spiritual truth.
Also notice that in the above passages Paul never appeals to the authority or direct commandment from God. Paul says, "I will therefore..." and "But I suffer not..." This upholds the idea that this set of instructions is a judgment call, dealing with a specific set of circumstances existing at that time and place, though transferable to others when necessary. To argue that Paul would not address some particular local circumstance of an assembly and adjust his instructions to fit that circumstance is to ignore that Paul himself said in I Cor. 9:19-22, "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more...to them that are under the law, (I become) as under the law...To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." This Paul was not above taking into account local customs and adjusting to them, giving judgments to specific churches in order to guide the members of those churches.
Lastly, the attitude that supports women keeping silent in churches ignores one major aspect of modern church life: today women do not keep silence in their churches. Although they are often not allowed do such things as teach adults or render prayers in church, they do teach children, lead choirs, ask questions during Bible study, make announcements when appropriate, greet visitors, etc. As it stands, this is a blatant disobedience to the "truth" as many churches interpret it. Particularly in the passage in I Cor., silence means absolute silence, not just quietness or silence at some times. To allow women to speak at all is to break the rule they claim to follow. This also underscores the fact that there is an obvious double standard in any church which allows women some service and yet cites this "silence rule" when refusing to allow them to serve as ministers, pastors, etc. However, if we accept the explanations of these scriptures as set forth above, we come back into line with fairness, logic, and consistency, not only from Paul, but more importantly, from God.
______________________________
CIRCUMCISION
The question of circumcision and women has been largely ignored and no wonder, since most women are not subject to physical circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision concerned only men: if a man was circumcised, all of the women in his household were included in the dealings with God through him. This is why, during the annual Holy Days, God called all males to appear before Him (Deut. 16:16 - when these men appeared they represented everyone in their households. The argument now is that women may not serve in leadership roles because they cannot be circumcised.
This foolish statement ignores one very important thing: our mode of worship has changed, and physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for a direct relationship with God. The Jerusalem conference settled that once and for all: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them (Gentiles), and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). Of course this question concerned the Gentile believers, but it can be extended to include women. The decision handed down then freed all from the need for physical circumcision in order to gain salvation: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." Physical circumcision was not and is not necessary to gain Yahshua's salvation. "For in the Christ Yahshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:29).
Through baptism, acceptance of Yahshua the Christ, and reception of the Holy Spirit, we are all spiritually circumcised and begotten and sons of God. In this way, we conform to the command for all males to appear before God during His Feasts. It has nothing to do with "heads of households" now. We appear there as individuals, as sons, all personally fulfilling our obligation to be obedient to God's commands. In addition, in this way we gain access to the promises made to the sons of God - for no spiritual promises are made to "daughters of God." The only reference made to daughters in the New Testament besides Acts 2:17 is in II Cor. 6:18, which is a quote from II Samuel 7:14, where daughters were not mentioned at all.
______________________________
THE PRIESTHOOD
Many people appeal to the fact that in the Old Testament the priesthood consisted exclusively of men, saying that this carries forward to our time where only men may serve in leadership positions as "priests by proxy." We know that women were not allowed to serve in the temple in the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, of course. The major flaw in this line of reasoning is simply this: We in Yahshua's assembly are not part of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. That priesthood has no bearing on us in our service to Him.
Though we are priests - "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light" (I Peter 2:9) - we are part of the Melchisedec priesthood: "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the People received the Law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:11 & 12). This change of the priesthood allows all who profess Yahshua as the Saviour and the Son of God into a new priesthood. The change of the law mentioned above makes provision for them in that capacity.
CHALLENGE TO "AUTHORITY"
As we have established, the only head in God's church, the only one who wields authority, is the Christ Yahshua. So why is there this attitude among churches that refuses women leadership positions? It very possibly has its roots in the few scriptures which mention "rule" over the flock. In KJV these scriptures, mainly I Tim. 5:17 and Heb. 13:7, 17, & 24), all use the word "rule", which implies authority over others. This is not correct. The Greek word used here is better rendered "direct" or "lead". In the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the above passages are worded (in order), "The well who take the lead elders..." (or, "the elders who take the lead well"), "Remember your leaders...", "Obey your leaders...", and "Salute all your leaders...". The New International Version renders them, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well...", "Remember your leaders...", "Obey your leaders...", and "Greet all your leaders...". The examples could go on. It is clear, though, that leadership and not rule is the message.
We see in Matthew 20:25-28 that "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (servant); and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant (bondservant or slave): Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." This is an outright condemnation of an authoritarian structure in any assembly. It is clear and straight from the mouth of our Lord Yahshua Himself: No one in any church rightfully wields authority over anyone else in that church. We do not have "vertical hierarchy" within God's assembly. There are two positions only: Yahshua as the Head, and the membership as the body. There is no other proper structure in God's church.
An examination of the Greek word translated "minister" will show that the very definition of the word is "servant". To deny women this position on the grounds that it is an authority position is a contradiction of Scripture. It is obvious that the positions set aside in the New Testament, i.e., elder (bishop) and deacon (minister), must be service positions, not authority positions. Anyone who has held either position (or truly, any office within a church) can tell us that this is so: these people are expected to be always on hand to serve the membership - and rightly so! The only way such people wield any "authority" is if they are allowed to do so, either through the voluntary submission of a trusting and well served assembly, or by an apathetic or ignorant membership. Either way, there is no Scriptural basis for any ordained authoritarian office in Yahshua's assembly.
One telling point against human authority in God's church is the obvious gulf which quickly emerges between the "ministry" and the "laity". This gulf may not be insurmountable, but it is there, separating the ministry from the membership. No matter how great or small that gulf is, should it be there at all? Shouldn't we all be shoulder to shoulder regardless of our calling and ministry? Scripture tells us to exhort, support, comfort, rebuke, and love one another, all of us. These are not jobs for just a chosen few, but for the entire membership of God's church. It is not a pastor's job to support the congregation: the congregation must be knit together, supporting itself. Scripture upholds the idea of a complete equality between all members of the assembly no matter what gender, allotment of gifts, social status, race, or other physical aspect of a person.
______________________________
WHAT OUR SONSHIP ENTAILS
If, as has been made evident by the points brought out in this article, we are all equal and all sons, what does that mean?
To begin with, the great commission given in Matthew 28:19 & 20 was given to the entire assembly. We are all to go forth, teaching, baptizing, and speaking boldly in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to all nations. This is an openly acknowledged fact. It is part of our obligation to our Father which comes with our acceptance of Him and His laws. Women must accept and fulfill that commission as fully as men have.
In I Peter 3:15 we are all instructed to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh (us) a reason of the hope that is in (us), with meekness and fear." This, too, is part of the responsibility we accept when we enter the body of the Messiah. This requires learning, teaching, and providing a witness worthy of our calling to others in the world - something required from all of us, male and female.
In I Cor. 12, 13, and 14, the gifts of the Spirit are addressed. It is obvious that the gifts are given to all according to the will of God. These passages in I Cor. give no indication that any gifts are gender-specific. God alone determines how these gifts are distributed and no matter what the gift, the recipient is required by God to ensure that the gift is made profitable in His service. Though the church should not seek to limit the utilization of any woman's gifts, nor any man's, the ultimate responsibility for allowing those gifts to become productive lies with the individual, not the church.
In Acts 9:2 we see that Saul, "if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he (brought) them bound unto Jerusalem." In Rev. 6:9 we read of "...the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held..."; Rev. 13:7 says, "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them..."; and in Rev. 13:15 - "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beasts, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Only a fool would believe that these persecutions will fall only on males: it is clear that both men and women have been and are to be persecuted, jailed, and killed because of their faith in Yahshua. Women must be ready to endure such persecution, even unto death, equally with men.
Finally, in Zechariah 4:2, 3, & 11-14, we see the two witnesses depicted. There is no gender specifically indicated for these two. In Rev. 11:3-12 two witnesses are again spoken of, again with no specific reference to gender. Isn't it possible that at least one of these two witnesses will be female? If so, every woman should be prepared to stand and speak before the world in their service to God in case they're called to act as one of His witnesses.
CONCLUSION
As has been established here, there is no sound Scriptural basis for refusing women any position of service within God's church. There is no Scriptural basis for excluding them from service as deacons or elders, nor is there any Scriptural basis for believing that they do not receive certain gifts and commissions from the Holy Spirit. Upon any individual's acceptance of God, repentance, baptism, and reception of the Holy Spirit, that individual is accepted by the Father as a spiritual son. He or she has been spiritually circumcised and begotten as a son of God with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of that relationship. If a woman is willing to accept the responsibilities of sonship and desires to serve God to the best of her abilities, how can any church in good conscience refuse her that right?
Rather than balk at the newness of this concept, shouldn't we embrace it and rejoice in the fact that our Father truly is fair and righteous and no respecter of persons? We have found consistency in scriptures which we believe to be God-breathed and incapable of error. We have complete sanction for full service before God, which is required of us according to our abilities. This freedom is not given through the personal generosity of any one minister or group of ministers or church, to be withdrawn at any whim: rather, it is given through the word of God. If the time of the end draws near, as we believe, we must reject the traditions thrust upon us until now. Le us use the truth revealed here so that we may strengthen ourselves, as individuals and as an assembly, and serve our Father as fully as possible.
Ruth Jeffery, September 1991
Limited revisions, March 1994, June 1999, December 2004