Part Three
by Jon Zens
__________________________________________________
13. It just seems to me that when you see ekklesia functioning in an informal, family atmosphere, the whole concern of”a woman teaching men” is put into a proper perspective. Husbands who are honest will freely admit that they have been taught many things by their wives from the Word, and have received invaluable discernment from them in the family decision-making process.
When this phenomenon takes places is the wife “usurping authority” over her husband? Obviously, a wife should never seek to dominate or manipulate her husband. Rather, the couple should be seeking to discern the Lord*s mind in all things together (symphonou, 1 Corinthians7:5).
“Teaching” in the New Testament is much broader than some of our narrow, “official” conceptions of it. Paul says that even in singing with and to one another, we “teach and admonish.” If the Lord gave a song for a sister to sing to the body, she would be involved in a broad teaching ministry to the entire ekklesia, and yet this is not “seizing authority” over anybody.
When a woman prophesies in the assembly, she will be part of the “teaching/learning” process in the body (1 Corinthians 14:26,31), yet she is not out of line as a sister. The truth is that both brothers and sisters can get out of line by what they say in the assembly. When this occurs the body in general, and the elders specifically, have the responsibility to correct the situation.
In our experience we have discerned the following general points with reference to the functioning of the sisters/wives:
a. they should not bring up matters publicly that are touchy or controversial which have not been discussed with their husbands first;
b. they should not engender discussion in the assembly about matters in which the husband/wife do not have unity on themselves;
c. they should not publicly take issue with their husbands, or other brothers present.
“The business of correcting and challenging others in a meeting,” Frank Viola observes, “is best handled by the brothers. The sisters should be unburdened by such unseemly tasks” (Open Letter). Sisters are very discerning and their concerns and questions should never be squelched. But it appears that the better part of wisdom is for the sisters to discuss such things with their husbands, or if single, with the elders or older sisters.
If the ekklesia desires the mind of Christ, then the concerns of all must be processed in a proper way. And in thinking about these things we must remember that women can function with eminent gifts without interfering with their marriage, and without violating the husband*s headship, as did Deborah and Huldah.
14. In 1 Corinthians 11, it seems that the traditional emphasis has fallen on “the woman is the glory of man. . . Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” But it needs to be pointed out that Paul*s emphasis seems to land on the mutual interdependence resulting from redemption, rather than on a hierarchical priority of the male. Literally, Paul says in verses 11-12, “Nevertheless, neither woman without man nor man without woman in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also the man is through the woman, but all things are of God.”
We know from Genesis 2 that God*s creation of the “image of God” encompassed both male and female. Eve as “helper” carried with it no idea of inferiority or inherent weakness. This Hebrew word is used often to refer to the Lord as the “helper” of Israel. The command to have dominion over the earth was given to both Adam and Eve. As a result of the fall, the beautiful relationship between man and woman was ruptured. Sin causes them to want to dominate each other, instead of pursuing harmony and one-mindedness together.
In Christ, marriage is restored. With mutual respect for one another, the wife can submit to her husband (as the ekklesia does to Christ), and the husband can love, nourish, and cherish his wife (as Christ does the ekidesia). Together they can reach decisions with mutual consent (symphonou). The traditional model of a dominating husband and a passive wife cowering in submission wife reflects the fallen order, not the redemptive order of the “new man,” where there is neither male nor female. As one author put it, woman was created to be at man*s side, not at his feet.
15. We need to keep in mind that the conceptions of women that emerged in the early church fathers were awful and unbiblical (cf. Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom & Friends). Yet many church leaders act like the visible church has always been a friend to women. John Lofton makes this incredible remark, “All of us who write have wished. . . that we had the power to, once and for all, lay to rest certain lies. Big Lies. And one of the biggest of the Big Lies I would like to never see repeated again is this: Christianity has been anti-woman” (Chalcedon, Nov., 1986).
Certainly neither Christ nor Paul were anti-woman. But it is a fact that post-apostolic Christianity has grievously portrayed the persons and functions of women (cf. Gage, Woman, Church & State; Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven). Ambrose (A.D.339-397) wrote: “She who does not believe is a woman . . . for the woman who believes is elevated to male completeness.”
Many such statements, and worse, could be multiplied. The inferiority of women is embedded in the doctrine of the visible church. Are we so naive as to think that the historical church has not been infected and affected — in everything from Bible translation to interpretation of Its texts — by the vile, dishonoring conceptions of women inherited from the past?
Is it any wonder that those wrestling with this issue in our day often have to spend time exposing and stripping away layers of assumptions that have piled up over 1500 years of unabated distortion? It is imperative that we search the Scriptures to see what is really so about women. A strong case could be made that the church was responsible for spawning the ungodly feminist movement. Is it any wonder that at some point women would rise up and react vehemently to the church*s horrendous misrepresentation of the female sex?
16. Romans 16 provides us with some clues regarding the ministry of women in the early church. Paul begins by commending Phoebe, who probably brought his letter to Rome, to the brethren there. The apostle informs them that she was functioning as a “deacon of the ekklesia in Cenchreae” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:11 for a possible reference to female deacons).
It is interesting that when the Greek word diakonos is used of Paul and other males, the King James Version often translated it “minister,” giving it a formal, office-bearing flavor But when this word was used of the female Phoebe, they recoiled from the “minister” rendering and translated it “servant,” giving her a non-official function. In my opinion it would be best to always translate diakonos as “servant,” thereby reflecting the New Testament*s focus on family images, not on hierarchical offices.
The space Paul devotes to this sister shows how much he respected and valued her. The Roman saints are told to “stand by her in whatever help she may need from you.” This means that they (including the elders, though they not mentioned anywhere in the epistle) are to listen to what she says and respond to her requests for aid.
Then Paul says that she was a “prostatis to many people, including me.” This is an interesting noun. The verb form means: “1. to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of). . . 2. to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid” (Bauer*s Lexicon, revised by Danker, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 870). The noun form means: “one who stands out in front, one who looks out for the interests of others, defender, guardian, benefactor” (Bauer, p.885). It is clear that this sister had a prominent, important and wide-ranging ministry, and was so recognized by the assembly at Cenchreae.
In vs. 3-5, Paul mentions the husband-wife team of Priscilla and Aquila, who both are his “co-workers,” and in whose home an ekklesia meets. In the following verses Paul mentions eight more sisters: Mary, “who worked hard for you”; Junia; Tryphaena and Tryphosa “who work hard in the Lord”; Persis “who has worked very hard in the Lord”; Rufus* mother; Julia; and Nereus* sister. Andronicus and Junia appear to be another husband-wife team. Paul designates them in v.7 as “outstanding among the apostles,” using “apostle” here in the sense that Barnabas and Silas were apostles.
Some have questioned that the name here is a feminine form, but the evidence points to its correctness. “In a survey of the Church Fathers up to the twelfth century whom commented on Romans 16:7, the overwhelming consensus was to give a feminine reading.
One of the most striking comments is that of by Chrysostom. Of Junia he wrote: ‘Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of the apostle!* . . . . What tips the balance most decisively toward a feminine reading, however, is not so much opinion but the fact that Junia was a common Roman female name, while not a single instance of the masculine form Junias. . . is attested” (Gillman, pp. 67-68). Romans 16 certainly shows that women were not relegated to the shadows in the early church.
17. The information we have about the ministries of women in the New Testament is all the more significant, it seems, when one considers the scanty or total absence of light we have on so many other people. The Book of Acts highlights the ministries of Peter and Paul. With the exception of James, we know almost nothing about the shape and direction of the other Apostles* work for the Lord (cf. W. Steuart McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, Tyndale, 1977). The truth is we have only glimpses of information about a lot of matters we wish were expanded in the New Testament.
18. In summary, I would note the following salient points:
a. women were not silent in the Old Testament era;
b. Joel foretold that males and females would prophesy in the Messianic age;
c. women were not silent when the Messiah was born (Luke 2:36-38);
d. women were not silent on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14; 2:1-4, 6, 8, 11, 16-18);
e. women were not silent in Christian meetings (1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:23-24, 26, 31);
f. Paul sees the headship of husbands as the basis for the proper functioning of the wives, not as a basis to silence them;
g. as in B.C. so in A.D. there were women prophetesses;
h. the initiation of a divorce by a wife was unheard of in the first century, but Christ mentioned it as a possibility (Mark 10:12);
i. wives must be careful to function in unity with their husbands;
j. a proper New Testament perspective would encourage men and women to function as equals, while the wives would seek to manifest a submissive spirit in light of Paul*s concerns;
k. there are examples in Scripture of women teaching men without being out of place or violating their husband*s headship.
19. I*ll never forget what happened at a home church we visited in Louisiana in 1987. The first thing the leader said when the meeting began was, “In accordance with Paul*s teaching, women will be silent in our gathering.” My spirit was deeply grieved by this dogmatism. Something did not seem right. Brethren, Moses said in anticipation of a future era, “Would God that all the Lord*s people were prophets! That the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:24-30).
This has indeed been fulfilled. The Lord has made his flock a kingdom of priests who each have a manifestation of the Spirit for the good of the body. A position which silences female believers ends up with the priesthood of males, not a priesthood of all. I do not believe the functioning of women revealed in the history of redemption will sustain such a conclusion.
20. “Given the difficulties of correctly applying 1 Corinthians l4:33b-35,” says Steve Atkerson, “we must be careful to respect those who hold to applications which differ from our position” (THCT, p. 132). This is a worthy reminder. The ministry of sisters is an issue that requires careful consideration indeed.
The fact that so many New Testament scholars cannot agree on how to correlate 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, etc., should prompt us to hold our views with humility and openness. But twenty years of wrestling with this matter has led me to conclude that the “silence” view is woefully inadequate. There is too much contrary evidence to justify, silencing half the priesthood. I wish that those who stake everything on two limiting passages would be willing to revisit this topic.
__________________________________________________