Note: this is a mirror site used by permission of Gospel Themes Press Links found below will direct the user to the main Home site for Gospel Themes Press. The Index has been added by the webmaster of The Fountain Gateway. All Scripture Links are added and courtesy of Blue Letter Bible - webmaster Mark K. Doty

Women and Men in a Local Church

Samuel G. Dawson

What is the role of women in local churches? Are all women to be in subjection to all men? May women attend congregational meetings? May women ask questions in a Bible class? What do subjection, quietness, and silence mean? What if men won't study these questions? This booklet deals with the issues.

Rights Notice

These electronically-transmitted pages are copyrighted © 1997 and belong to Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. All rights reserved. You are free to download this electronic material for personal use, to make copies to share with others, or to mirror on your local web site, with the following restrictions:

• The material must remain intact and unmodified from the form supplied here, including header and footer and their graphics, copyright notice, the URL and postal addresses.

• You may not charge for this material. If you have any questions about using this material, please contact the publisher at gtp@gospelthemes.com.

Copyright

All scripture quotations are taken from The American Standard Version New Testament, © 1901, 1929 Thomas Nelson and Sons. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Copyright © 1997 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson

ISBN 0-938855-83-2

Publisher

Gospel Themes Press
2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960

Hard copies can be purchased in booklet form directly from Gospel Themes Press. Click here to Place an Order.

Index of Women and Men in a Local Church

It is nearly unnecessary to comment on the need for such a study as this. All recognize that on the subject of a woman's role, we have witnessed a tremendous revolution in this country. At a recent Democratic National Convention, an interviewer asked a young woman, who was in authority over two hundred men in the security force, "Surely you must feel a great responsibility."

Contrarily, the young woman said, "No, it's now traditional for women to give orders."

We have witnessed the women's rights/liberation movement in this country, and, in a bad sense, both men and women have noticed that society has placed women where God didn't put them. While that is not our major concern here, we notice that many churches have done the same thing. Christian women across the nation express great concern about the role of women in local churches. They are anxious about whether women may ask questions in a Bible class. They wonder about the role of women in the execution of the work of a local church. Although like Amos, I'm not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I predict that most denominations, if they haven't already, will accept women clergy and administrators will change their policies for tax purposes, rather than lose their tax-exempt status as discriminatory over sex. Thus, we wish to discuss the passages of scripture that deal with this subject.

For Christians to work together in a local congregation, there must be collective will. But where do women fit into determining collective will? The New Testament uses words like "subjection," "quietness," "submission," and "silence," when it speaks of women. In a physical family, if a husband takes these terms to mean that his wife can have no part in the collective will or action of the family, we recognize it as spouse abuse. What about in God's family?

We begin with a plea for open minds. J. I. Packer made this poignant observation for such a need:

We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books, and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world . . . It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has moulded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be "Catholic" tradition, or "critical" tradition, or "ecumenical" tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures. (J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958], pp. 69-70.)

Of course, some will not approach this study with an open mind. Thomas Munnell warned of such people in regard to J. W. McGarvey, who had published a different view of some aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit:

The world has always had its men who, too weak to discuss fairly, have spent their little force in denouncing. This has always been the unfailing source of division among good people; for the reformer, never desiring to leave the church to which he belonged, but to reform it, has nevertheless been uniformly driven out of the church because of his newly-developed truths. This was the case with Luther, Wesley, Campbell, and all others such as these. Let us, then, never be chargeable with an imbecility that disqualifies us for a reinvestigation of any subject that fairly commands our attention. (Thomas Munnell, Lard's Quarterly, II, No. 2, Jan. 1865 [Lexington, KY: Moses Lard], p. 155.)

It should be stated at the outset that the author approaches this study especially to ascertain what the role of women should be in the collective action of a local church. You should be aware that he believes women ought to be involved in the meetings of a church which decide its collective action, i.e. he believes men-only business meetings to be without scriptural foundation. Please read this material critically, being aware of this fact.

We all realize that conditions in society shouldn't affect our teaching. But we should also recognize that society can force us to study a subject that perhaps we haven't studied in depth before. As time goes on, we will know more about it and our study will certainly affect our teaching. When society agrees with the laws of God, we don't have to study much. When society changes, it sometimes forces us to study.

For example, those in churches of Christ didn't know much about instrumental music before the second half of the nineteenth century. The reason: even denominations were not using it. When denominations changed in the late 1800's, Christians studied the question seriously for the first time. As a result, Christians now know much more about the subject than our counterparts in earlier centuries did. Society didn't force us to change, but it did force us to study.

The same is true on the subject of premillennialism. Before the 1940's premillennialism was not popular in the denominational world. As society changed, most mainline denominations became premillennial, and we've had to do more study. As a result, we know much more about premillennialism than Christians only 50 years ago knew. Society didn't force us to change, but it did force us to study.

Rampant homosexuality has affected us much the same way. In the mid-twentieth century, sermons were hardly ever preached on the subject. The change in society hasn't forced us to change our beliefs on the subject, but it surely has forced us to do more studying, debating, etc.

Divorce and remarriage is a similar topic. When the laws of man agreed with the laws of God, even our government permitted divorce only for fornication. Giants of the past like McGarvey, Campbell, and Lipscomb didn't have to study the subject much. Now that society has changed, we can't coast along as easily as those men did. We must study and preach more on the subject now, and know more about it than they did. We should, because the changes in society have forced us to study it much more than earlier Christians ever did, and our study may force us to change our teaching. In fact, this study has already affected the teaching of everyone who examines the subject seriously, regardless of their position on the various issues.

The same thing is true of our present subject. Our wives and daughters are exposed to all sorts of concepts on the role of women in general, and their role in a local church specifically. The issue affects them, as it affects us all. We can no longer just expect our women to accept past traditions without proving their scripturality. This forces us to study the issue in greater depth. Undoubtedly, Christians will eventually end up being the only ones with any idea of a woman being in subjection to a man. We now want to examine the passages which teach about a woman's relationship to a man.

In I Cor. 11.3, Paul said:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

While we many times refer to this passage as dealing with "the covering question" in regard to a woman using miraculous spiritual gifts, that was not Paul's primary thrust. Paul taught on the matter of authority. Many of our standard translations describe the line of authority as God-Christ-man-woman, which gives many people the impression that all women are in subjection to all men. However, the word translated "man" is the word aner, the standard word for "husband." Paul used this word in passages dealing with both men and women approximately fifty-six times in his writings, and with very few exceptions (if any) when both a man and woman are in the context, he used it of a husband. This is the word he used five times in Rom. 7.2, 3 when he said "a woman is bound by law to her husband." It's the word he used in I Cor. 7.2 when he said that every wife should have her own husband. It's the word he used in I Cor. 14.35, where he instructed the women to ask their husbands at home. It's the word he used in I Tim. 3.2, where he stated that an elder is to be the husband of one wife.

Even more specifically, Paul used the word aner in Eph. 5.22-33, where he said the husband was the head of the wife and instructed wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, not other women's husbands. In Tit. 2.5, Paul told the older women to teach the young women to be in subjection to their own husbands. In I Pet. 3.1, 5, Peter again admonished women to be in subjection to their own husbands.

Understanding that aner means the same thing in I Cor. 11.3 makes one realize that Paul taught exactly the same thing as he did in Eph. 5.22ff, i.e., that a wife is in subjection to her own husband, not all men in general. A husband is the head of only one woman, his wife, not the wives of other men. A wife has only one head, her own husband. She does not have many heads. "The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church" (Eph. 5.22). If we can understand how many churches Christ is the head of, then we should have no trouble comprehending exactly how many women a man is the head of--just one. Likewise, if we can understand how many heads Christ's church has, we should have no trouble grasping exactly how many heads a wife has--still just one! While we may have given tacit approval to the idea that all women are to be in subjection to all men, no one really believes that other men's wives are in subjection to every man. If I tell another man's wife to do a particular chore, I'm sure to be sorely disappointed! How many husbands who read these words actually believe I'm head of their wives? How many wives who read these words believe I'm their head?

Not only does aner allow that I Cor. 11.3 speaks of the husband/wife relationship, but the context also shows the same thing. For example, the first argument Paul made to show that a woman should wear a covering to show subjection appealed to the husband/wife relationship. In verse 5, Paul argued that a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraced her head and was equal "with her whose head is shaved." The early Christians understood this to refer to a wife because it was a "custom in the case of a woman accused of adultery to have her hair `shorn or shaven.'" (Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ, [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967], p. 154.) Thus, the context shows that the head a woman disgraced when she prophesied or prayed uncovered was her husband, just as a woman accused of adultery brought reproach upon her head--her husband.

In addition, Paul appealed to the creation as proof that the wife owed subjection to her husband and should wear a covering when exercising spiritual gifts: The woman originated from the man (verse 8) and was created for the man's sake (verse 9). The creation account told how God created one woman for one man and how He gave the woman to the man in marriage. Paul emphasized that even though women exercised spiritual gifts just as the men did (Acts 2.17), God had not done away with the law of subjection of a wife to her husband that was ordained by the creation. Since a woman was speaking for God in the use of her spiritual gifts, she was to wear a covering, an extra sign of subjection to her husband. In this way, the women who heard her speak God's will would not jump to the false conclusion that God had done away with the subjection of a wife to her husband along with the law of Moses.

Thus, the context of I Cor. 11.3-16 shows that Paul referred to the headship of a husband over his wife. In the New Testament age, was a wife to be submissive to her husband? Yes! Even when she exercised spiritual gifts! Not only that, but she was to make sure that everyone knew that she was submissive by wearing a veil when she spoke through inspiration. Through wearing a veil, her example would not teach a falsehood about God's will while she prayed or prophesied.

Sometimes people stumble on how to apply the creation account to the husband/wife relationship. For example, they argue that the wife did not literally come from her husband as Eve did. Likewise, in verse 12, the husband is not literally born through his own wife.

The key to understanding this is the context. Verse 11 says, "However, in the Lord, neither is woman [the wife] independent of man [the husband], nor is man [the husband] independent of woman [the wife]." To prove that husbands and wives are inseparable and there is no inferiority or superiority between them, Paul again referred to the creation in verse 12. In our marriage ceremonies today, we often quote the creation account as a basis for the marriage to take place in exactly the same way as the apostle Paul used it in this passage.

Certainly, every wife did not come literally from her husband's body. But symbolically she did. God said that because the first wife was taken from the first husband, all wives throughout time owe a debt of subjection to their own husbands. To prevent abuse of the wives by their husbands, Paul stressed that husbands also had a symbolic beginning--that each and every husband was born of some man's wife. Indeed, the first wife was named "Eve, because she was the mother of all the living" (Gen. 3.20). Then Paul emphasized that both the husband and wife originated from God. The husband and wife today do not originate directly from God's hand as the first husband and wife did, but through the process of fertilization, gestation, and birth that God set in motion. However, symbolically, they both originated from God, the husband from the dust of the ground, and the wife from the husband's rib. Obviously, verses 8, 9, and 12 refer to the creation, to the first husband and wife. To try to apply these verses to husbands and wives today in a way other than symbolically, is to ignore the context. Paul's whole point is that the creation still demands that a wife show subjection to her husband. The creation also demands that a husband not mistreat his wife who is symbolically the mother of all the living, including him.

Further proof that I Cor. 11.3 refers to the husband/wife relationship is the use of singular nouns for man and woman. Notice: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man [individual man--singular], and the man [singular] is the head of a woman [singular]. . ." The man is the head of a woman just as Eph. 5.23 explains--the head of his wife. But for years, people have read this verse then said, "Therefore, men [plural] are the head of women [plural] and women [plural] are to be in subjection to all men [plural]." I Cor. 11.3 cannot be read correctly and made to teach this interpretation! The singular nouns must be ignored to teach that women are to be in subjection to all men from this verse.

Yet, in referring to Jesus, Paul demonstrated that making an argument on the basis of whether or not a word is singular or plural establishes truth. In Gal. 3.16, Paul wrote, "He does not say, `And to seeds,' referring to many, but rather to one, `And to your seed,' that is, Christ." In other words, in I Cor. 11.3, Paul did not say, "The men are the head of a woman" referring to many, but rather to one, "the man is the head of a woman," that is, the husband, Eph. 5.23.

Thus, the use of the standard word for husband--aner, the context, the parallel passage Eph. 5.23, and the use of singular nouns for man and woman all show that Paul taught that a woman should show subjection to her husband when she exercised spiritual gifts by wearing a veil. The translators could have correctly rendered I Cor. 11.3, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every husband, and the husband is the head of a wife, and God is the head of Christ."

That Christ is in subjection to the Father doesn't mean that Christ is inferior to God, but shows their working relationship. Neither does a wife being in subjection to her husband imply that she is inferior. It is simply a matter of authority and a working relationship. God delegated authority to the husband to function as the head rather than the other way around. In this passage, Paul emphasized that even if a woman had spiritual gifts, she was still to be in subjection to her husband. She was to wear the covering when she exercised her gifts so other women would know she didn't exercise authority over her husband. The husband's responsibilities as head are discussed in detail in Eph. 5.23-33.

The wife's subjection is not even a punishment for sin, as some believe. In I Cor. 11.8, Paul taught that the woman originated from the man to serve him. In I Cor. 11.9, Paul taught that the woman was created for the man. In verse 12, Paul testified that the husband/wife relationship originated with God. These three facts of the creation were true before sin came into the world. The creation itself showed that the wife was to be in subjection to the husband, which was the basis of Paul's whole argument in I Corinthians 11.

Men sometimes feel that their wives are inferior to them because they can't do some things men can. It is not so! Cats can do things I can't--always land on their feet and fuzz up their tails--but I'm not inferior to a cat. Squirrels can scamper up a tree with cheeks full of acorns, but I'm not inferior to any squirrel that ever lived. When I'm in subjection to the elders in a local church, I'm not inferior to any of them. Likewise, my wife being in subjection to me doesn't imply that she's inferior to me, any more than my children are inferior to me. It is simply a matter of authority and a working relationship.

Here Paul said:

. . . let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

This passage has a couple of restrictions. First, it deals with regulations about miraculous spiritual gifts. Each of chapters 11-15 starts with a reference to miraculous spiritual gifts: I Corinthians 11 tells how women were to use their spiritual gifts, I Corinthians 12 describes these gifts, I Corinthians 13 discusses how long they would last, and I Corinthians 14 reveals how men were to use them in the public assemblies of the church at Corinth. (We know this passage refers to how the men were to use their gifts because the women were forbidden to exercise theirs in the assembly.)

Second, it deals with the public assembly of a local church. Notice how Paul mentioned the assembly: In verse 5, Paul spoke of a tongue-speaker edifying himself versus the church. In other words, Paul contemplated the church as being present. In verse 16, Paul referred to the visitors there, "he that filleth the place of the unlearned." In verse 19, he spoke of "in the church." In verse 23, Paul thought of "the whole church" being assembled. In verse 24, he alluded to visitors "coming in," i.e., into the assembly. In verse 26 he said, "When ye come together." It's clear Paul contemplated the public assembly in I Corinthians 14.

These regulations applied to all assemblies of the church, i.e., Bible classes, business meetings, preaching assemblies, or Lord's supper assemblies. Had we been in the church in Corinth, I doubt that any of us would have allowed four prophets or tongue-speakers to exercise their gifts in a business meeting or a Bible class. Nor would we have allowed a woman to exercise her gift in those assemblies. In a small church, the presence or absence of one little five-year-old girl, the only child, while she was in a Bible class didn't mean these regulations weren't binding on the assembly. It was an assembly of the church whether she was there or not! Whatever this passage prohibited or authorized for one of these assemblies of the church, it prohibited or authorized it for all of them.

The distinction we sometimes make between Bible classes, business meetings and Lord's supper assemblies is purely man made. Paul used none of these expressions; he gave these regulations to apply "when ye come together." We can easily see distinctions our denominational friends make between the Law of God and the Law of Moses, or the moral law and ceremonial law when they try to bind Sabbath-keeping on Christians today. In this case, we easily realize those are not scriptural distinctions. Many times when our Sabbatarian friends read a passage speaking of the Sabbath, it's nearly like a little switch activates in their minds: "This is speaking of the ceremonial law, not the moral." Likewise, distinctions between clergy and laity, circumcision and uncircumcision, gospel and doctrine, and pastors and elders are purely man-made.

The same is true with the distinction between assemblies of a local church, whether they are for Bible study, deliberating about church business, or partaking of the Lord's supper. We may have a little switch that trips in our minds that tells us, "This passage is speaking of a Lord's supper assembly on the first day of the week," but that is not what Paul said. Paul gave these regulations to apply "when ye come together." I'm confident that the Corinthians consistently applied Paul's regulations concerning prophets and tongue-speakers to every occasion when the local church assembled, whether for Bible classes, business meetings, or to partake of the Lord's supper. Had we been in the Corinthian church, we wouldn't have permitted prophets or tongue-speakers to have violated these regulations in any of these assemblies!

What About Silence?

The term "silence" in I Corinthians 14 is not the same word as "quietness" in I Timothy 2. "Silence" means "not to make a sound." All nine times that it occurs in the New Testament, it means absolute silence. While men many times emphasize the silence of the women in I Corinthians 14, they often fail to notice that the same word occurs three times in this context. In verse 27, Paul said that the men tongue-speakers were to be "silent" if no interpreter was present. This did not mean that the men tongue-speakers couldn't sing, ask a question in a Bible class, or speak in a meeting deciding the business of the local church. It merely meant that, as far as exercising their spiritual gifts were concerned, they were not to make a sound if there was no interpreter present in that assembly. The term "silence" next occurs in verse 30, where Paul commanded the men prophets to be silent while another was speaking. Again, this didn't mean that a man prophet couldn't sing, ask a question in a Bible class, or speak in a meeting deciding the business of the local church. It merely meant that, as far as exercising his spiritual gift was concerned, he was not to make a sound while another prophet was speaking in the assembly. Paul gave inspired regulations for the exercise of miraculous spiritual gifts in an assembly.

The "speaking" Paul mentioned in verses 34-35 for the women is the same "speaking" of the whole chapter, i.e., speaking by the Spirit. In verse 27, Paul mentioned the man speaking in a tongue, i.e., speaking by the Spirit. In verse 27, he said when there was no interpreter present, this man should speak to himself, i.e., speaking by the Spirit. In verse 34, he said women were not permitted to speak in these circumstances, i.e., speaking by the Spirit. This was the case in verse 35, where Paul said it was shameful for a woman to speak, i.e., by the Spirit in the assembly. "Speaking" must be interpreted consistently throughout this context.

Someone might say, "What about the women, how were they to exercise their gifts in the assembly?" Paul said, "As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches." This sounds good to impress on women if we rip it out of its context, but we cannot do so without so restricting the men prophets and tongue-speakers at Corinth. Silence for the women meant the same thing silence meant for the men. It meant the women couldn't make a sound as far as exercising a miraculous spiritual gift in the assembly was concerned. It didn't mean they couldn't sing, or ask a question in a Bible class, or speak in an assembly deciding the business of the church. "Silence" must be interpreted consistently throughout this context.

Furthermore, what does silence mean? S-I-L-E-N-T does not spell "attend." Many use this passage to teach that a woman cannot even attend a meeting discussing the business of the church, contradicting plain statements of scripture, which will be discussed later.

For women, who had spiritual gifts that they might be tempted to exercise in the assembly at Corinth, Paul said, "It is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection." In other words, they could not speak in exercise of their spiritual gifts in a mixed assembly, but they had to use their gifts while being in subjection. That is, if it were an assembly of women only, like that of Lydia in Ac. 16.13, women could speak with their spiritual gifts provided they wore a veil to show their subjection as taught in I Corinthians 11. If men were present, they couldn't speak at all by inspiration.

Thus, other than applying this regulation outside the use of spiritual gifts, those who use it to say that a woman cannot sing, ask or answer a question in a Bible class, or speak in a meeting discussing the business of the church, are using it exactly right. Which is to say facetiously, they're not using it correctly at all.

To see further the specific context in which this regulation occurred, we notice that Paul made five statements about "silence" in these verses. Yet, we are likely to interpret only the last three without regard for the context. The five statements are:

Verse 28: Tongue-speakers "keep silence"
Verse 30: Prophets "keep silence"
Verse 34: Women "keep silence"
Verse 35: "Shameful for a woman to speak"
Verse 35: If learn anything, "ask their own husbands at home"

Tongue-speakers didn't have to keep silent under all circumstances, only when an interpreter was not present. Prophets didn't have to keep silence in all situations, only when another prophet was speaking. Women didn't have to keep silence under all circumstances, only as far as exercising their miraculous spiritual gifts in a mixed assembly was concerned. It was not shameful for women to speak in the assembly in all circumstances. They could sing (Eph. 5.19), confess Christ (Rom. 10.9-10), and confess their sins (I Jn. 1.9). But it was shameful for women to exercise their miraculous spiritual gifts in a mixed assembly, i.e., women couldn't speak in tongues or prophesy. They could not speak under these circumstances. It wasn't shameful for women to speak under all circumstances, but it was in the ones Paul mentioned.

When Paul said, "And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home," did Paul intend for us to interpret without restriction? Did Paul mean the women couldn't learn anything from the male tongue-speakers or prophets or from the Bible class, the singing, the preaching, or even from reading silently? Of course not! The women couldn't learn anything by interrogating the prophets like the men did, I Cor. 14.29. To "pass judgment" was just another type of spiritual gift that apparently both men and women had. Paul called it "discerning spirits" in I Cor. 12.10.

A Christian woman can speak in a Bible class, a Lord's supper assembly, or a meeting discussing the business of the church as long as she remains in subjection to the designated leaders, with a quiet disposition. It's easy for us to know when she doesn't practice subjection. For example, if a drill sergeant asks his men if there are any questions, and one recruit says, "Sir, did you say we get up at 3 or 4 a.m.?" No one has a problem with his subjection to the sergeant. If the recruit says, "Who do you think is crazy enough to get up at that hour?" Everyone knows he doesn't have a quiet disposition.

The same thing is true in a mixed Bible class taught by a man. If a lady says, "What was that passage again?" there is no problem. If she asks a question that is really a statement like, "You dumbo! Who else is crazy enough to believe that?" she has overstepped the line. She has overstepped it, not because she made a comment, but because of the nature of the remark she made. So has a man overstepped subjection to the designated leader in the same circumstance! The safe practice would be, if a lady doesn't know her speech is right in these circumstances, she shouldn't do it. Likewise, if a man doesn't know his speech is right, he should keep silent.

"As Also Saith the Law"

Some read Paul's statement "as also saith the law," and assume that the Mosaic law told women to be silent in their assemblies. Then they reason from secular history that since women were not allowed to speak in Jewish synagogues, they should not be allowed to speak in our assemblies now, except for singing, confessing sin, or confessing Christ.

First of all, Paul didn't say that women were to be silent as the law also said, but to be in subjection, as also saith the law. There is a difference, and one that we can plainly read in the Mosaic law. Women could and did speak in Jewish assemblies with the approval of God. One example is found in Num. 27.1-11, where shortly before Moses' death, he was petitioned by five daughters of Zelophehad who had no brother, thus no land inheritance coming in the land of Israel. Verse 2 says:

And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders and all the congregation, at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

In verses 3-4, they presented their petition before the congregation and its leaders. In verse 5, rather than shrieking "apostasy," and predicting the decline of Israel because the women were pushing for leadership, Moses took the matter to God. Likewise, God didn't scold Moses for permitting these women to speak in these surroundings. He didn't reprimand the high priest, the leaders of the nation, and the whole congregation, for permitting such a thing to happen. Verse 7 gives the Lord's reaction:

The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them.

In verses 8-11, God gave additional legislation to be incorporated into Moses' law to handle all such cases in the future. In Joshua 17.4, when these daughters entered Canaan, they obtained their land inheritance.

Women speaking before the leaders and the whole congregation was permitted under the Mosaic law. This is what the law said, to which Paul referred in I Cor. 14.34. The law didn't tell women to be silent, but it told them to be in subjection to their own husbands. For example, in Gen. 3.16, Moses wrote that God said to Eve:

. . . I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

Paul, in Gal. 4.21-22, quoted from Genesis, and called it the law. Thus, though the Mosaic law didn't tell women to be silent, it did tell them to be subject to their own husbands, just as Paul said in I Corinthians 14.

"Subject themselves as also saith the law" is parallel with Paul's argument in I Corinthians 11. Since Paul had just gone into great detail to prove that a wife owed a debt of subjection to her husband because of the creation, even when she exercised spiritual gifts, Paul didn't need to repeat all his arguments here. He needed only to refer back to those statements by reminding the women to submit themselves as also saith the law. Paul's Corinthian readers knew what he meant.

Since speaking by inspiration was revealing God's will to the people, both men and women prophets needed to be careful that they did not convey a false message by their example. Thus, when men spoke by inspiration, they were to be uncovered to show that they accepted their headship over their wives. Women, on the other hand, were to wear veils to show that God's law of subjection ordained at the creation was still in effect. When men prophesied, as in I Corinthians 14, the women were not to use their spiritual gifts at all. This would have been disgraceful, because if women had used their spiritual gifts alongside men, they could have falsely given the impression that the law of subjection had been done away with along with the law of Moses. When men prophesied, the woman's silence in the use of her spiritual gifts was a special sign of subjection just as wearing the veil was a special sign of subjection when women prophesied.

We next consider the general rule about the relationship of men and women. Although I Corinthians 14 was concerned with the assembly of the local church, this passage is not so restricted. Paul did not mention the local assembly in the entire chapter. Likewise, he did not limit this passage to the relationship of husband and wife only. It is a general passage indeed! Paul began with a teaching situation:

Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

The term "quietness" is not the same word translated "silence" in I Corinthians 14, and does not mean such. It means "a quiet disposition." Perhaps the most convincing way to see this is to note that Paul used the same expression in II Thes. 3.11-12, where he told even men:

For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Thus, if "quietness" in I Timothy 2 means silence in a teaching situation, it would have to mean the same thing, that is, silence, in II Thessalonians 3, and men would have to be silent on their jobs! "Quietness" in II Thessalonians 3 is the opposite of a busybody. It describes the person with a quiet disposition who minds his own business, and men are to conduct themselves in this way. The word "quiet" also occurs in I Tim. 2.2, where Paul instructed that we pray for civil rulers, "that we might lead a tranquil and quiet life." Again, this is not a silent life.

"To be subject" means "to arrange under, to subordinate . . . to obey . . ." (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1889], p. 64.) Thus, being in subjection doesn't mean "to be silent." Contrary to what many believe, Paul didn't contemplate all women being in subjection to all men in this passage. He only spoke of women being subject to men in positions of authority in the church.

Nor was I Tim. 2.11-12 a prohibition of women teaching per Se. Paul commanded older women to teach young women in Tit. 2.2-5. It did not even prohibit women from teaching publicly, for Paul commanded their singing in Eph. 5.19: "Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." I Timothy 2 didn't even prohibit women from exercising authority, for in Gen. 1.26, after creating man and woman, God said, "Let them have dominion . . ." I Timothy 2 enjoined women in a teaching situation to be quiet, but did not absolutely prohibit them from teaching a man. This meant that a woman couldn't be boisterous, arrogant, contentious, nor argumentive.

To appreciate fully Paul's teaching, we must understand a figure of speech, called "ellipsis," which he used here as well as many times elsewhere in his writings. "Ellipsis" simply means "words left out," which the writer wants the reader to supply. All people in all languages use ellipsis. When we tell Junior, "Shut the door," we omit the subject, but he understands that we speak to him.

The particular type of ellipsis in this verse is identifiable by the occurrence of "not" and "but" as initial words in dependent clauses that modify a common verb. If we don't recognize this figure of speech the hundreds of times it occurs in the New Testament, we will teach false doctrine about each one of them. The most basic example we find in the New Testament is I Pet. 3.3-4, where Peter instructed Christian women:

Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Some of our Pentecostal friends, who don't recognize this figure of speech, use this verse to prohibit their women from wearing gold jewelry and having their hair done. They claim, "The Bible plainly says, let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold." They are not so hard on Peter's next phrase, though, "or putting on of apparel." Was Peter also prohibiting women from wearing apparel? Of course not, and they shouldn't bind an interpretation on others which they are not willing to obey themselves. If they don't believe their argument enough to obey it consistently, why should we?

Note that the "not" clause and the "but" clause both modify the verb "to let." Peter, in effect, said, "not only, but also," with emphasis on the "also" phrase. In other words, "let your apparel be not only the outward, but also the inward, and especially the inward." Christian women should put more emphasis on their inward clothing of a meek and quiet spirit than they put on their physical clothing.

We find a similar basic example in Jn. 6.27, where Jesus told His listeners:

Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life.

Notice again the "not . . . but . . ." construction with the common verb "to work." One who doesn't spot this ellipsis could say, "The Bible says not to work for physical food." His interpretation would conflict with other passages: "If any will not work, neither let him eat," (II Thes. 3.10). If one recognizes the figure of speech Jesus used, he'll not make an absolute prohibition out of the "not" phrase. Then he can correctly understand that Jesus taught that we should work for both physical and spiritual food, and put the emphasis on the spiritual.

So in I Tim. 2.11-12, we again have an ellipsis, as evidenced by the "not" and "but" with the common verb "permit." Thus, Paul permitted a woman to teach, but she must do it in quietness. Paul didn't say that a woman cannot teach at all (an absolute prohibition), for she can teach women and children (Tit. 2.2-5) and men. For example, in Ac. 18.26, Luke said that Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos unto them, and expounded the way of the Lord unto him more accurately. The word "expounded" is a strong word, and Luke said that they both did it. This is the same word used in Ac. 11.2, where they of the circumcision "contended" with Peter. It's the same word used in Ac. 28.23, where Paul "expounded" matters to the Jews in Rome. In other words, Priscilla didn't sit passively while the expounding occurred.

Paul didn't teach that a woman can't teach publicly, for she can (Eph. 5.19). Paul didn't say that a woman cannot exercise dominion at all, for she can (Gen. 1.26) over animals. Paul didn't even teach that a woman can't refuse to be in subjection to a man, for she must refuse in cases where a man's instruction violates God's (Ac. 4.19, 5.29). Likewise, her will takes precedence over the government, an employer, and elders in a local church in cases where their instructions conflict with God's.

Paul taught that in a teaching situation, a woman could not exercise dominion over a man. When a man presides in a public teaching situation, he exercises considerable authority which would be improper for a woman to do in the same circumstances. For example, for a woman to supplant the authority of a public speaker would be improper. It would be just as improper for a man to do the same thing!

For example, a man could speak out in a preaching assembly, but he had better be careful how he does it. Once when in college, I sat behind an elderly man listening to a preacher. In the midst of the sermon, the elderly man rose up and raised his hand, desiring recognition by the speaker. I thought the man was having a heart attack. The preacher, who had confidence in the gentlemen, said, "Yes, brother, what is it?" The man briefly explained that the preacher had just said something the man was confident he didn't believe, and thought the preacher would appreciate the opportunity to correct himself. As it turned out, the preacher had done just that and restated his position. If you think, "Boy, a man had better be careful in a situation like that," you're right, just like that man was careful! But, I'm confident a woman could have done the same thing. This is not to say that I'm in favor of women speaking out while I'm preaching, but neither am I in favor of men doing it either! In fact, anything a man can do in any assembly of the church, a woman can do, except exercise dominion over a man. A woman would not exercise dominion over the preacher in the above circumstance any more than that gentleman did.

The same is true with song-leading. Suppose a song leader announces a certain song number, say number 503. If I'm sitting in the audience, and say, "Oh, no, not that one again," I'm acting improperly. The group has given that man the responsibility of leading that part of the service, and I undermine his authority.

Basically, Paul prohibited women from exercising authority over men in a teaching situation which is private or public, whether or not it's in the assembly of a local church. This would be true in an assembly where Christians partook of the Lord's supper, participated in a Bible class, or attended a meeting where Christians deliberated about the business of the church.

The reason Paul gave for women to show subjection and quietness in teaching situations and in exercising authority was the same reason he gave in both I Corinthians 11 and 14--the creation. In verse 13, Paul appealed to the order of creation, the fact that Adam was created first. In verse 14, Paul added the wisdom of creation: Although Adam was deceived (this is another ellipsis), Adam was not deceived to the degree that Eve was deceived. Eve went all the way in being deceived by desiring the forbidden fruit for the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Eve's sin demonstrated for all time God's wisdom in ordaining the law of subjection of a wife to a husband. God created men and women differently with distinct mental and physical abilities. Man is uniquely suited for his role of leadership in the home. While Adam sinned and was deceived, he did not go to the limit that Eve did in her sin.

When the role of the creation is understood in I Corinthians 11 and 14 and in I Timothy 2, it presents a beautiful picture of subjection. In every spiritual realm that a woman finds herself, she is to demonstrate by her example that God's law of subjection as ordained by the creation is still in effect. Notice I Corinthians 11: When women used spiritual gifts, they showed God's plan for wives to submit to their husbands by wearing a veil. I Corinthians 14: When men used spiritual gifts, women showed God's plan for wives to submit to their husbands by total silence in using their own gifts. I Timothy 2: When no one used spiritual gifts, women continued to show God's plan for wives to submit to their husbands by their quietness and not teaching nor exercising authority over men. These outward signs of subjection aided the women in obeying God's command to teach the young women to be submissive to their own husbands that the word of God be dishonored (Tit. 2.3-5). This answers the question, "What about single women and widows?" These women had a responsibility to show by their conduct that God's plan for women in the creation was still in effect even if they didn't presently have a husband.

As a result of women being careful to show by their example that the law of subjection as ordained by the creation has not been done away with, they preach two powerful sermons without uttering a word. The first sermon women preach in every assembly of Christians by their submission to men in leading positions is, obviously, that subjection and leadership in the home works. It demonstrates God's wisdom and has not been done away with. The second sermon women preach has to do with the parallel between the husband/wife relationship and the relationship of Christ to the church as portrayed in Eph. 5.22-33. The husband represents Christ and the wife represents the church. By looking at the wife's subjection to her husband, aliens should be able to conclude that there is only one church. True subjection demands only one course of action in the church in obedience to Christ, the head.

Thus, Biblical subjection is a beautiful relationship between a husband and wife. And every woman should be delighted to show by her actions God's wisdom in the creation. What is important is not a woman's relationship to the other men in the assembly. Her relationship with her husband is of primary importance. He is the man she was created to be a helper meet for. A woman's subjection is not to all men, but to her husband and to the other men while they exercise spiritual gifts or function in positions of leadership, i.e. preaching, leading singing or prayer, waiting on the Lord's table, making announcements, conducting a meeting, etc.

As mentioned in the introduction, Christians who work together in a local church must have collective will. When a congregation has elders, they can help a congregation arrive at collective will more efficiently than a congregation which does not. However, elders, even for their own good, should not determine the collective will of the group by themselves, but rather consult with the church. In fact, no example in the New Testament shows elders determining the collective will of a congregation apart from the members. Elders who lead without an authoritarian leadership style will enjoy the confidence and support of the congregation to a much greater degree than those who do. This does not mean that they share their authority with the congregation, or that the church is a democracy. To say that the men in the congregation are to be in subjection to the elders does not mean that the men have no say, that they cannot make suggestions, supply information, ask questions, make comments, or express their will. In Ac. 15.22, even in the presence of apostles and elders, "the whole church" was involved in the decision to send a letter to Gentile churches informing them of the doctrinal unity demonstrated by the apostles. Elders ought not to be afraid of such participation today, but rather strive to follow the Bible's example.

Similarly, the fact that younger Christians should be in subjection to older ones (I Pet. 5.5) does not mean that younger Christians cannot make suggestions, supply information, ask questions, make comments, or express their will. Older Christians would be foolish, indeed, to disregard the resources of younger Christians. The fact that Christians are to be subject to civil rulers does not mean that they cannot participate in the decision-making process of their nation. Employees who are in subjection to employers do not understand that they cannot make suggestions, supply information, ask questions, and make comments. It is a foolish employer who does not seek such. Likewise, the fact that wives are in subjection to their husbands does not mean that they may not participate in the decision-making process in the home. Foolish, indeed, is the husband who does not value his wife's suggestions, information, questions, and comments.

What about women in a local congregation? Even when a church has elders, men are foolish indeed, if they neglect the contribution of the women. As a matter of fact, if you want elders who will lord it over the flock, just pick men who in their own families do not seek the input and contribution from those in subjection to them. God guarantees that if these men rule their own house so poorly, they will do the same thing with the church of God (I Tim. 3.5).

The three passages we have discussed in detail, I Timothy 2 and I Corinthians 11 and 14, have historically been used in many churches of Christ to say that women could not participate in or even attend "the business meetings of the men." As we have seen, I Timothy 2 restricts women only from exercising authority over men, not from attending. I Corinthians 11 and 14 regulate only the exercise of miraculous spiritual gifts, not exercised in present-day churches of Christ. Do we use these passages correctly to justify secret council meetings of the men? Stated another way, can we use these passages to prohibit a woman from speaking in a meeting where the congregation decides the collective action of the local church? Does S-I-L-E-N-T spell "attend"? Does Q-U-I-E-T-N-E-S-S spell "attend"? Does S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-O-N spell "attend"?

Similarly, these verses would not prevent a woman from passing the Lord's supper, although leading in public prayer at the table with men present would exercise authority over those men and violate I Tim. 2.8. Serving the bread and fruit of the vine in itself would not exercise authority over men. Women serve men in restaurants and at home, and men think nothing of it. Women could operate an overhead projector in a debate, and render other aid in a debate. Women could exhort a sinner and debate another woman before an audience of women. Women could write articles for bulletins and write commentaries. Would I Corinthians 11 and 14 and I Timothy 2 prohibit a woman from writing checks as the treasurer in a local church? I think not. Many wives write checks all the time and their husbands don't consider it an unsubmissive act. This is not a wholesale suggestion for congregations to immediately enlist women in such efforts, but these observations are made to cause the reader to contemplate just what the words "silence," "quietness," and"subjection" really mean.

Examples of Women in Congregational Meetings

The New Testament contains at least four examples where women clearly participated in congregational meetings, i.e., where the whole church weighed, pondered, and considered their action. These examples include the local church's work in benevolence, doctrinal problems, discipline, and evangelism. In other words, women participated in every aspect of the work of a local church.

Benevolence

About the problem of neglect of widows in Ac. 6.1-6, Luke said:

Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen . . .

The apostles didn't call just the men together, but the multitude of the disciples, including the widows of verse 1. The apostolic instruction didn't please just the men, but the whole multitude of disciples, who then chose the seven men to do the work. If the whole church could participate in a congregational meeting to see about a work of benevolence in the first century, there is no reason the whole church cannot participate in such a meeting now. Certainly, I Corinthians 11 and 14 and I Timothy 2 didn't prohibit it in Acts 6 and they don't prohibit it now.

Doctrine

In Acts 15, we have the demonstration that all the apostles were teaching the same doctrine about salvation for the Gentiles. In verse 12, Luke said this demonstration was given before "all the multitude." Thayer's Lexicon says the word translated "multitude" with the article "the" means "the whole number, the whole multitude, the assemblage," and says the word is also used in Ac. 15.30, of the whole multitude in the church at Antioch. After the proof was given, the church at Jerusalem communicated this fact to Christians among the Gentiles. In Ac. 15.22, Luke said:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas . . .

It didn't seem good just to the apostles and elders, or just to the men, but to the whole church, and the whole multitude chose messengers out of their company. If a whole local church could participate in doctrinal matters in the first century, what is wrong with an entire local church now doing so? Do I Corinthians 11 and 14 and I Timothy 2 prevent it? Did they prevent it in Acts 15? Of course not!

Discipline

In I Cor. 5.4, Paul instructed the church at Corinth about the flagrant fornicator in the church there:

In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul didn't say to call the men together; he said this action was to be taken publicly, in their public assembly. If I Corinthians 11 and 14 and I Timothy 2 didn't prohibit an entire local church from participating in such disciplinary actions then, why do they now?

Evangelism

In Ac. 14.27, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from their first missionary journey, Luke recorded:

And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Paul and Barnabas gathered the church together, not just the men. Again, if an entire local church met to deliberate about a matter of evangelism in the New Testament, why could it not now?

To summarize these findings, we ask whether the benevolent action in Acts 6 was undertaken by the elders only or the men only, or by the multitude of the disciples? Was the doctrinal resolution in Acts 15 undertaken by the elders only or the men only, or the whole church? In the disciplinary matter of I Corinthians 5, was it undertaken by the elders only or the men only, or by the whole assembly? In the evangelism matter in Acts 14, was it done before the whole church, or just the elders or just the men?

Let us challenge the reader to find a passage in the New Testament where the term "church" refers to a group of only elders or only men. Of course, elders can have private meetings, Ac. 15.6, 20.17-35, Gal. 2.2. It may be right for elders to meet, deliberate, and make decisions privately, for matters come to their attention which are not the concern of the congregation as a whole. However, the New Testament practice of congregational meetings protects elders and the congregation from the danger of "lording it over" the flock. These areas of church activity concern the whole congregation, not just the elders. In addition, where in the New Testament did the church meet when only the men were there? If there is no such passage, then we conclude that "men-only business meetings" are unscriptural. This means simply that there is no New Testament authority for them.

Sometimes, one will ask: "Are four examples of congregational meetings all you have?" Yet this is four times as many passages as we have for taking a collection on the first day of the week. It is also four times as many passages as we have for partaking of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. It's twice as many passages as we have for assembling on the first day of the week. How many times must something be taught in the New Testament for it to be the truth?

We have established that congregational meetings occurred in the New Testament, and that women were present at those meetings. Some people object, "There are no examples of women speaking in these meetings." To this we readily agree. So far, we have just used those passages to prove that women were present in those cases and that the whole church listened, approved, appointed, sent a letter, and disciplined a sinner. We used I Corinthians 11 and 14 and I Timothy 2 to show that women had to behave in such meetings.

Not only are there no examples of women speaking in congregational meetings, but neither are there any examples that demonstrate that a single woman ever said a single word in any New Testament assembly. More specifically, just like no example exists of a woman speaking in a congregational meeting, no example exists of a woman singing, confessing her faith in Christ, or confessing sin in an assembly! Of all the passages which mention "singing" in the New Testament (Mt. 26.30, Mk. 14.26, Ac. 16.25, Rom. 15.9, I Cor. 14.15, Eph. 5.19, Col. 3.16, Heb. 2.12, Jas. 5.13, Rev. 5.9, and Rev. 15.3) only I Cor. 14.15 has a local congregation of Christians in the context. And in that context, it is the men only singing through exercising their spiritual gifts. So, if there is authority for women to sing, confess faith, or confess sin in an assembly of Christians, it will have to be by general authority.

Does the Bible Authorize a Woman to Speak at All-Even Outside the Assembly?

Before the Law of Moses, Sarah, the wife of Abraham spoke. Under the Law of Moses, various prophetesses spoke, and, in Jn. 4.26, Jesus spoke with the woman at the well. He didn't seem to be astonished that this woman spoke at all. In the New Testament, we find general authority for a woman to speak in Eph. 4.29:

. . . let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying, as the need may be . . .

No indication is given of an assembly in the context of this verse. Likewise, in I Cor. 11.5, Paul addressed the matter of a woman praying and prophesying, again with no indication in the context of this taking place in an assembly of Christians. Thus, women upon whom the apostles had laid their hands had general authority to speak by inspiration. As we've already seen, Paul later restricted women from exercising miraculous gifts in a mixed assembly in I Cor. 14.34-35.

Women also have general authority to sing in passages where the assembly is not in the context in Col. 3.16 and Eph. 5.19, where Paul commanded all Christians to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. "Speak" here is the same word Paul used in I Corinthians 14 where he said it was shameful for a woman to speak in the church. We've never taken that to mean that women couldn't sing; we understand that women have general authority to sing. We've also understood that Rom. 10.9-10 gives general authority for a woman to confess her faith in Christ, as I John 1.8 authorizes a woman to confess sin.

It is important to notice that in normal speech, inspired speech, singing, confessing faith, and confessing sin, we have general authority for women to act. Does this mean that women have authority to speak in the assembly?

Do Women Have Authority to Speak in an Assembly?

When we have general authority for a practice, all specific methods of that practice are also authorized, unless there is a specific prohibition to some method. For example, Paul authorized benevolent acts toward everyone in need in Eph. 4.28 when he said:

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need.

Although there are no examples of giving to an armless man, a barren mother, or a Texan, unless there is a specific prohibition against giving to these three, Paul's general teaching applies. In II Thes. 3.10, Paul gave a specific prohibition in this matter:

. . . we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.

Obviously, we do not have divine authority to give to the person who refuses to work to support himself. Likewise, in the matter of foods, in I Tim. 4.4, Paul authorized Christians to eat all foods when he said:

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving.

Thus, though there are no specific examples of Christians eating Mexican or Chinese food, we understand them to be included in Paul's statement. However, a specific prohibition against certain foods is also given. In Ac. 15.29, Christians were told to:

. . . abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, . . .

This constitutes another example of general authority with a specific prohibition.

Some object to teaching the Bible in simultaneous classes under one roof because there is no example of such classes in the Bible. If general authority to teach is given, with no specific prohibition against the class arrangement, we don't need an example. General authority is given in Ac. 20.28 where Paul told the elders in Ephesus:

Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

We understand that if the owner of physical sheep tells his shepherd to feed his sheep, the shepherd has authority to divide the sheep into rams, lambs, and ewes, and feed them accordingly, even though the owner gave no such specific instructions. When he divides the sheep and feeds them appropriately, he is still doing what the owner said, as long as the owner didn't give a specific prohibition against such an arrangement.

So with the shepherds in God's flock. When they have general authority, with no specific prohibition, they have the authority to divide the sheep, and feed them appropriately.

This is not to say that just as long as the Bible doesn't say not to do a certain thing, it is permitted. General authority for the practice must exist.

With these thoughts in mind, we now make these observations about what women can do in a congregational assembly. The passages we noticed above which authorize a woman to speak, speak by inspiration, sing, confess faith, and confess sin outside an assembly, also authorize her to do them in a barn, although no specific example is given in the New Testament, and, as long as they don't violate I Tim. 2.10-12.

They would also authorize women to speak, pray, prophesy, sing, confess faith in Christ, and confess sin in a tree, although no specific example is given in the New Testament, and, as long as those women didn't violate I Tim. 2.10-12. Likewise, they would authorize women to speak, pray, prophesy, sing, confess faith in Christ, and confess sins in a Bible class, although no specific example is given in the New Testament, and, as long as those didn't violate I Cor. 11.5-6, 14.34-35, I Tim. 2.10-12.

Likewise, these same passages would authorize women to speak, pray, prophesy, sing, confess faith in Christ, and confess sins in an assembly, although no specific example is given in the New Testament, and, as long as those women didn't violate I Cor. 11.5-6, 14.34-35 and I Tim. 2.10-12.

Applications

May a woman use inspired speech in an assembly even though there's no example? There is general authority for a woman to pray and prophesy, I Cor. 11.5, but there is a specific prohibition for her doing it in a mixed assembly, I Cor. 14.34-35. There is also a specific prohibition for her to pray when men are present in I Tim. 2.8.

May a women sing in an assembly even though there's no example? Yes, there is general authority for a woman to sing, Eph. 5.19, with no specific prohibition for her doing it in the assembly, as long as she doesn't violate I Cor. 14.34-35 or I Tim. 2.10-12.

May a woman confess Christ in an assembly even though there's no example? Yes, there is general authority for a woman to confess faith in Christ, Rom. 10.9-10, with no specific prohibition for her doing it in an assembly, as long as she doesn't violate I Cor. 14.34-35 or I Tim. 2.10-12.

May a woman confess sin in an assembly even though there's no example? Yes, there is general authority for a woman to confess sin, I John 1.8, with no specific prohibition for her doing it in an assembly, as long as she doesn't violate I Cor. 14.34-35 or I Tim. 2.10-12.

May a woman comment in a Bible class even though there's no example? Yes, there is general authority for a woman to speak, Eph. 4.29, with no specific prohibition for her doing it in a class, as long as she doesn't violate I Cor. 14.34-35 or I Tim. 2.10-12.

Likewise, may a woman speak in a congregational meeting even though there's no example? Yes, there is general authority for a woman to speak, Eph. 4.29, with no specific prohibition for her doing it in a congregational meeting, as long as she doesn't violate I Cor. 14.34-35 or I Tim. 2.10-12. Either this is true, or one must insist on an example for her speaking in a congregational meeting when he does not insist on an example for her singing, confessing Christ, confessing sin, asking a question in class, or speaking to teach a children's class under exactly the same circumstances. In fact, the above examples show that every collective activity that a woman engages in with her brethren is authorized through general authority. To not recognize general authority, is to deny women their right to worship God and to be a worker in the church.

This is similar to our controversy with brethren who say churches can have "no simultaneous Bible classes under one roof," because no example of multiple classes exists in the Bible. Yet without specific examples, they go ahead and use baptistries, multiple containers, radio preaching, etc. While they are inconsistent in their teaching and practice, they condemn others who are consistent.

How Should These Concepts Affect Congregational Action?

In a word, the same way these other concepts should affect our congregational action. For example, if someone argued that women should not sing in an assembly because there is no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, wouldn't we still permit women to sing in an assembly?

If someone argued that women should not confess Christ in an assembly because there is no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, wouldn't we still permit women to confess Christ in an assembly? If someone argued that women should not confess sin in an assembly because there is no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, wouldn't we still permit women to confess sin in an assembly?

If someone argued that women should not comment in class because there is no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, wouldn't we still permit women to comment in a class? If someone argued that women should not teach children's Bible classes because there is no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, wouldn't we still permit women to teach children's classes. Likewise, if someone argued that women should not speak in a congregational meeting because there's no example in the New Testament, and would prefer that women didn't, should we not permit women to speak in a congregational meeting? As a matter of fact, if God permits a woman to speak, may a congregation scripturally prohibit her from doing so? In Mt. 16.18, Jesus told His Apostles:

. . . and whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Thus, the Apostles could only bind and loose what God had authorized them to bind and loose. If God didn't prohibit women from speaking in congregational meetings, could the apostles have? If the Apostles couldn't, can we?

How Should These Concepts Affect Fellowship?

Again, in a word, the same way these other concepts should affect our fellowship. If someone leaves because women sing in an assembly, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference.

If someone leaves because women confess Christ in as assembly, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference. If someone leaves because women confess sin in an assembly, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference.

If someone leaves because women comment in a Bible class, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference. If someone leaves because women teach children's Bible classes, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference. Likewise, if someone leaves because we let women speak in a congregational meeting, even though there's no example, he would not be leaving over doctrine, but because all didn't follow his preference. However, since her speaking is individual action, her action wouldn't involve others, even if they think her speaking is sin. In other words, no one would have to leave: women who believe they shouldn't speak in a Bible class don't have to leave to maintain a pure conscience, they just don't speak! Women who believe they should wear an artificial covering in the assembly don't have to leave if others don't, they just make sure their own behavior is correct.

Men-Only Business Meetings Are a Substitute for Elders

Many times it is argued that since congregational business meetings are a substitute for having elders, and since elders are only men, that the business meetings should only consist of the men of the congregation. However, as the examples show, men-only business meetings are not a substitute for elders, but a substitute for the congregational meetings we see in the New Testament. We've seen examples when meetings of whole congregations took place in the New Testament both when there were elders, and when there weren't. Compared with the Bible, men-only business meetings are not a substitute for elders, but for congregational meetings with both men and women present.

No Example of Women Speaking in Congregational Meetings

If someone argues that no authority exists for women to speak in congregational meetings because no example exists, we offer the following: We have already shown that no Bible examples exist of Bible classes, multiple containers, gospel radio programs, women class teachers, or song books. Does this mean we do all those things without authority as well? Similarly, there are no Bible examples of women saying a single word in any New Testament assembly: not singing, confessing Christ, confessing sin, or asking questions in a Bible class. If the above argument is correct, this means that no authority exists for any of these activities. We have previously shown that general authority exists for all of them.

Silence, Quietness, and Subjection

We have discussed the silence of I Corinthians 14 and seen that it entailed a prohibition of women exercising miraculous spiritual gifts in a mixed assembly. But just what does silence really prohibit? Would it mean that women couldn't even attend a congregational meeting? Or would it mean that they could attend but not speak? Or does it mean that they could attend and speak submissively? Whatever we say about this question, had we been in the church at Corinth, would we have consistently applied that same teaching to men prophets and tongue-speakers, who Paul also told to keep silent? Whatever that passage teaches about women, it also teaches about men prophets and tongue-speakers. Consistently, the men prophets, tongue-speakers, and the women could attend and speak submissively.

We have previously discussed the quietness of I Timothy 2. Now we ask, just how shall we view the quietness, and do we apply it consistently? Does quietness mean that women cannot attend a congregational meeting, or they can attend but not speak, or they can attend and speak submissively? Whichever position we take, do we apply it consistently to men at work, as per II Thes. 3.12? Consistently, quietness would permit a man to attend work and speak submissively. The same root word for "quietness" occurs in I Pet. 3.2, where Peter instructed wives to adorn themselves with a "meek and quiet spirit." Paul permitted a woman to be around her husband and speak submissively to him. Likewise, quietness would permit a woman to attend a congregational meeting and speak submissively to the man in charge just as the men are to do.

What about subjection? Does subjection mean that a woman cannot attend a congregational meeting? Does it mean that she can attend, but not speak? Or does it mean that she can attend and speak submissively? If we say that subjection means she cannot attend, wouldn't Peter's language prohibit younger men in subjection to older men (I Pet. 5.5) from being there, too? Since all the men are to be in subjection to the elders (Heb. 13.17), would their subjection prohibit all the men from being there, too? To be consistent, subjection allows all men under elders, younger men, and women to be there, and to conduct themselves in a submissive manner.

Thus, Paul's teaching about silence, quietness, and subjection would not prohibit women from being involved in congregational meetings now, any more than they did in the first century. Women can attend, ask questions, and supply information, as long as they don't violate I Timothy 2. This is true just as women and children, who are in subjection to the head of the household, can attend family meetings, ask questions, and supply information as long as they don't violate the man's headship described in Eph. 5.22ff. The man who is afraid for his family to participate in matters which affect the whole family is probably going to be afraid for women to participate in matters which affect the whole church as well. Thus, Paul said in I Tim. 3.5:

. . . but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Silence in I Corinthians 14.34 Is an Absolute Prohibition

No, for if so, no authority exists for women to confess Christ, confess sin, or sing in an assembly, as we have already demonstrated. Additionally, we have shown that general authority exists for women to speak in all these circumstances. Finally, a universal prohibition against women speaking in the assembly wouldn't be "as the law also said," particularly in view of Numbers 27 where the daughters of Zelophehad who spoke before Moses, the priest, the elders, and the whole congregation with God's approval.

What About Abuses?

Will women ever get out of subjection? Surely, but when does abuse prohibit a scriptural action? If it does, out go men-only business meetings, unless we all know that men have never gotten out of line! Did any younger men ever fail to submit to older ones? If so, should we eliminate younger men from our men-only business meetings? Would abuses by elders outlaw elderships, especially since Paul warned that elders would abuse their authority (Acts 20.28-30)? Just because men sometimes misbehave in business meetings doesn't move us to concoct a doctrine to keep men out. The apostles didn't even do that. Would abuses of baptism outlaw baptism? Do abuses by preachers outlaw preachers? Do abuses of collections prohibit them? How about abused Bible classes? Should we abolish all classes?

In seventeen years' work with three churches which had congregational meetings, this writer has experienced only two or three times when a woman got pretty close to the line of subjection in a congregational meeting. Guess who talked to those women, and got them back in line in a hurry--that's right, the women! Yet, I cannot number the times I've observed men getting out of line in business meetings. Would that men were so efficient at the exhortation of the others who misbehaved in a business meeting.

Men need to realize the great faith their wives must exercise to be in subjection to them. Women read in the Bible where they must submit to their husbands, and in spite of all their fears that their husbands will mistreat them, be inconsiderate, not weigh their desires in their decisions, etc., women still submit because of their faith in Christ. Their faith is stronger than their fear of abuse! Do men have that kind of faith? Or will the men's fear of abuse outweigh their confidence in God that women can participate in the work of a local church now, as they did in the New Testament?

Jewish Women Didn't Speak in the Synagogues

Sometimes it is argued that because of their background in the synagogues, early Jewish Christian women would not have spoke in their assemblies, and thus we shouldn't allow women to speak today either. Before one puts too much credence in this argument, he should realize that synagogue worship didn't even originate with God! God never told the Jews to build synagogues, and He gave no instruction on behavior within them. The Jews brought synagogues back from Babylon, not from the Bible. No rule specifically regulating synagogue worship came from God, but was based squarely on the traditions of the Jews.

Furthermore, the synagogue argument proves too much. In the same section that describes their synagogue activity, notice the other things the women didn't do:

As to religion, the position of women was also inferior to that of men. They could not go beyond the Court of the Women in the Temple [this was not in God's instructions, but was introduced by Herod when his temple was built], they could not wear phylacteries, and were not obliged to recite the Shema or wear fringes on their mantles. In the synagogue they were seated apart from the men in a gallery behind a trellis. Although not counted members of the congregation, women kindled the Sabbath light and were expected to observe holy days. They could not testify in a court of law except to prove the death of a husband. They were, however, subject to positive commandments of the Torah [first five books of the Old Testament that Moses wrote] unless they were defined as specifically in such a way as to be applicable only to men.

The education of the Jews was essentially religious, intended to make men in the first place servants of Yahweh and in the second place good citizens. Whether there were public schools throughout Palestine before the fall of Jerusalem is uncertain . . . The number of these schools it is, however, impossible to state, although the likelihood is that all of the chief towns had places of regular instruction for the boys. The instruction given in these schools was viva voce, and until the pupil was ten years of age was entirely from the Scriptures . . . Girls do not seem to have been permitted to attend these schools, although among the rabbis we find several learned women. Ordinarily the girls were taught embroidery and music. A woman once asked Rabbi Eliezer a question as to a point in science. He replied that "no other wisdom is becoming a woman than that of the distaff [the whole of a woman's work in the home--SGD]." Other extremists declared that, "He who teaches his daughter the law, teaches her immorality." Such statements, however, are to be regarded as epigrams of conservatism rather than an legal decisions. (Shailer Matthews, New Testament Times in Palestine 175 B.C. - 135 A.D., [New York: MacMillan Co., 1933], pp. 190-196.)

People who use Jewish women sitting behind a trellis as authority to prevent women from speaking in a congregational meeting, need to be consistent and use all the Jewish traditions regarding women spiritually. For example, the women weren't required to attend services except for holy days. They were discouraged from studying the scriptures. Men were the ones who taught the young boys the scriptures. So if Jewish history prevents women from speaking in business meetings, it also prevents women from attending worship, studying their Bibles, and teaching children's classes. They should just stay home and clean house like any good Jewish woman! What proves too much, doesn't prove anything.

In addition, Jesus continually demonstrated that He did not respect Jewish customs regarding women. Remember how He spoke to the woman at the well and His disciples marveled that He was talking to a woman. Likewise, when Martha asked Jesus to rebuke Mary because she was sitting at His feet learning instead of helping her in the kitchen, Jesus did not do what any good Jewish man would have done by rebuking Mary. Instead, Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the good part by wanting to learn and it would not be taken away from her. Given Jesus' denunciation of substituting man's traditions for God's teaching, wisdom would dictate that we not base congregational activity of New Testament Christians on Jewish behavior in the synagogues.

What About Romans 14?

Sometimes it is argued that congregational meetings may be scriptural, but we should not have them for fear of causing the weak to stumble. We strongly believe the sentiments of Romans 14, and certainly do not want to violate them, but we should reflect on just what those principles are.

First, when Paul spoke of conducting ourselves properly toward weak brethren in regard to things like circumcision, eating meat offered to idols, esteeming one day above another, etc., none of Paul's applications included collective action of a congregation. Surely, we shouldn't ride roughshod over another Christian, but to apply Paul's teaching to collective matters of a congregation is to apply them outside Paul's sphere of application.

Second, Paul's instructions were designed to prevent the weak brother from sinning. If one leaves a congregation because he's convinced he would be sinning by staying, he's not sinning by leaving. It's not a sin to leave a congregation because you disagree with their collective activity.

Third, the weak brother in Paul's cases thought God forbade the actions he wouldn't perform. The teaching of Romans 14 doesn't apply in cases where the weak brother just prefers that something not be done.

Fourth, even though the weak brother in Romans 14 thought it was a sin to do the particular activity, he didn't bind his position on others. The church was not bound to follow the ignorance of its weakest members. Rather, individuals were given the chance to make a personal judgement about how they could best influence their weak brother on an individual basis. George DeHoff, a highly regarded preacher earlier in the first half of the twentieth century, made some cogent remarks on the matter of how strong Christians act toward weak ones in matters of Christian liberty:

There are two extremes here: There is the brother who claims he will do as he pleases without any regard to what other people think. He will have no regard for the feelings of a weak brother. He will wound that brother and seek the fellowship of the world rather than the fellowship of this mistaught or untaught brother who is a Christian and loves our blessed Lord. Such a person is unworthy to be called a Christian. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a brother who is not nearly so weak as he thinks but who has been in the kingdom for years but is a crank and a fanatic. He has a tender conscience, he claims, and tries to use it to control everybody else. His favorite passage of Scripture is to read what Paul said about meats and apply it to anything he wants to keep other people from doing. Of course, we will just have to get along with this fellow the best we can. A few years ago I preached at a place where the congregation would not use individual communion cups. A hundred and fifty people all drank out of two glasses. I discovered that the reason for this was one brother. When I talked with him he said, "No, it is not wrong to use individual communion cups but I object to them. If you use them you cause me to offend." He turned immediately and read what Paul said about eating meat. I advised the brethren to put the cups in and pay no attention to this brother. He admitted that he knew the truth. If he had actually thought it was sinful to use the individual communion service it would have been in order to bear with him but it was not in order to encourage his contrariness. Paul himself would not have wanted us to do so." (George W. DeHoff, Sermons on First Corinthians, [Murfreesboro, TN: The Christian Press, 1947], pp. 71-72.)

Seven Arguments for Congregational Meetings

First, we've seen that men-only business meetings are without foundation in the New Testament. Second, we've seen that congregational meetings involving an entire local church certainly are scriptural and were the norm. Women don't need my permission, or that of a group of men, to participate in such. They've already got the permission of Christ through His apostles. Third, nearly all congregations do it, at least when they're considering building a new building or hiring a new preacher or selecting elders. The Bible justifies what most congregations have always done. We merely urge them to be more consistent. Fourth, it's dangerous for women to support something financially when they don't know what's going on, just as it is for women in denominations, and Christian men, as well. We, including women, are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. It's dangerous for anyone to support a work which they don't know about. Fifth, it's dangerous for men not to have the women there. If I come home from a men-only business meeting and tell my wife how the others mistreated me, she may help me lick my wounds based on one side of the story. It is shame and folly to make decisions upon the basis of one side of a story, Prov. 18.13. Thus, she may inadvertently support me in some sin, and that is dangerous for me as well! Sixth, it's hurtful to a local church to exclude the talents, resources, energy, intellect, insights, and ingenuity of its women. Involvement of women in the affairs of the congregation will be of more help to other women. They will help us be more effective in the discipline of women, if not men as well. They often have greater understanding of the needs and shortcomings of children's classes than the men do. We need their valuable insights on many subjects. Seventh, it is foolish for the men to not have the input of the women. When men make decisions regarding collective activity without benefit of the wisdom of half the members, it is a shame and a folly to them. Prov. 18.13 ("He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.") applies to decisions in the church as well as in the home.

Men and women who read and agree with these concepts may encounter stiff opposition to them. This isn't necessarily bad, because a congregation shouldn't change its basic work capriciously. However, in many churches, the climate for open study of any new idea is not healthy. Although we demand of non-Christians that they be willing to examine all kinds of new concepts with an open mind and Bible, many Christians are not willing to undertake such study themselves. Chapter 6, "Dealing with Doctrinal Differences," in the author's Fellowship: With God and His People, will help Christians who are still students navigate controversial areas without sin, as well as those who aren't comfortable dealing with unfamiliar concepts. This chapter is also available as a booklet When Brethren Differ.

Regarding dealing with brethren with whom we disagree, legendary restoration preacher David Lipscomb said:

When differences exist, the discussion of these differences is the only hope of union. The suppression of discussion is the direct and open road to division. Whoever opposes the free discussion of differences among brethren, in that favors speedy division. Differences existing will manifest themselves. If they are discussed freely, there is hope of reconciliation and harmony. Suppress the discussion, and unless the strong hand of arbitrary and despotic power holds by the terror of physical force, disruption and division must follow. When persons having a community of interest differ, so long as those who differ show a kindly interest in the others, listen to the remonstrances, treat with considerate kindness their feelings, wishes, and reasonings, they remain one. The moment the one party says: "We wish to hear no more your reasonings; we intend no longer to regard your feelings or wishes; we intend to go our own way, regardless of your course or purposes," those people become two distinct people. Division or an unmanly and unchristian submission to what we believe to be wrong is the only alternative." (David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate, [Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1906], p. 552.)

Brethren of Lipscomb's day made every effort to keep their Bibles open as long as possible while they studied the issues of slavery, whether Negroes had souls, and whether Christians should participate in the Civil War. Significantly, no general schisms occurred in the body of Christ over these monumental issues. Surely brethren today should have sufficient character to study such small matters as whether women may speak in a congregational meeting without suppressing open study and discussion. When we stand before the world crying, "You show us one thing we're doing that's not in the Bible, and we'll change," we just can't afford to cringe away when someone accepts our challenge. One of our least favorite words describes one who preaches one thing and practices another.

A lack of willingness to study may be the most serious problem. We would probably all agree that if a man has studied for himself, and has reached an unpopular conclusion on any subject, he should be able to study that issue with his own brethren in a local church. If they will not study with him, most students would agree that he should find a group of Christians who are still disciples, that is, who are still willing to study.

If a woman finds herself in a similar situation, has studied for herself, and reached an unpopular conclusion on any subject but this one, she should be able to study with her own brethren in a local church. If they will not study, most students would agree that she should find a group of Christians who are still disciples, that is, who are still willing to study.

If a woman finds herself in a similar situation on this question, she should be able to study with her own brethren in a local church. If they will not study, she should find a group of Christians who are still disciples, and who are still willing to study and obey God in all areas.

This booklet is available at the website: http://gospelthemes.com where copies can be made to distribute freely as long as the booklet is kept intact along with all of its headers and footers and the copyright and publisher information and addresses. Or you can order hard copies of this booklet from Gospel Themes Press, 2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960  USA.

Would you like to see more of Samuel G. Dawson's publications? Visit our Bookstore and Free Online Materials. Return to top.