by William J. Stewart (Kingston, ON)
In discussing any Bible topic, our aim must be to seek the truth. It doesn’t matter what we have believed for many years, what is popular, or what we are comfortable with. We must endeavour to please God, not men (Galatians 1:10), ourselves included.
If the LORD has bound something or loosed something, then we must also bind or loose accordingly (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). To bind where God has not bound or loose where God has not loosed makes us like the Pharisees (Matthew 15:3-6; 23:4). It is sinful to create and enforce spiritual laws that God has not given (Romans 14). It is equally sinful to ignore and fail to keep laws that God has given (Romans 2:21- 23).
Before we look at women’s participation in public Bible classes, we ought to briefly address the fact that the Bible class, as we know it, cannot be found in the bible. Does that make it unscriptural? No. The church is commanded to teach the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and to edify and equip the saints (Ephesians 4:11-16). How this is accomplished (ie. lecture, interactive class, Bible readings, printed material, etc.) is left to our discretion. Though a “Bible class” as such is not found int he Scriptures, there are several spiritual discussions recorded in the gospels, Acts 15, and elsewhere in Scripture. The Lord certainly permits discussion as a means of teaching His word.
Let’s begin by reading 1 Timothy 2:11-14:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Silence – hesuchia
Depending on translation, the Greek word hesuchia is rendered as “silence,” “quietness,” or “quietly” in the English. The word appears in Acts 22:2, where it is used to describe desistance of speech, as the crowd “kept all the more silent.” And, it appears once more, in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where people are commanded to “work in quietness.” The word does not exclude absolute silence (as was likely the case in Acts 22), but it also does not demand it. The word does not limit speech, but governs the manner of speech. It speaks of a quiet disposition and not causing a disturbance. One who conducts themselves in quietness acknowledges deference to authority.
Authority Structure
1 Timothy 2 states that the woman is to be in “submission.” Her role is not to dominate, but to be subordinate to whomever is identified as the authority. It is essential to realize this text does not portray universal submission of all women to all men. I have no right to demand another man’s wife to make me a sandwich or clean my house. Neither has a woman violated this text if she teaches me how to tie a tie or fold a sheet. The text is dealing with spiritual activities. How does the woman show her submission when assembled for spiritual activity?
Some believe she is not permitted to speak. If that is what the Spirit of God wanted Paul to write, He would have given him the word sigao rather than hesuchia. Some believe that she may ask questions, but is not permitted to make affirmative statements. Rather than simply speculate about the speech of one who is in submission, perhaps it would be helpful to look at other relationships that involve authority and submission. we do not want to allow what God forbids, but equally, we do not want to forbid what God allows. Consider:
- Husband / Wife relationship (Ephesians 5:22-23). Is a wife permitted to speak to her husband? Must all of her speech be questions? May a wife contribute ideas to a discussion with her husband without it usurping his authority as the husband
- Master / Servant relationship (Ephesians 6:5-6). Is a servant permitted to speak to his master? Must all of his speech be questions? May a servant contribute ideas to a discussion with his master without usurping his authority as the master.
- Employer / Employee relationship (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). Is an employee permitted to speak to his employer? Must all his speech be questions? May an employee contribute ideas to a discussion with his employer without it usurping his authority as the employer?
- Teacher / Student relationship (Luke 6:40). Is a disciple permitted to speak to his teacher? Must all of his speech be questions? may a student contribute ideas to a discussion with his teacher without it usurping his authority as the teacher?
I believe the consistent answer to each series of questions is yes, no, yes, respectively. The woman’s submission as described in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 would be the same as each of the above relationships. If not, why not?
What Constitutes A Teacher?
Thayer defines teach as “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them; deliver didactic discourses; to discharge the office of teacher, conduct oneself as a teacher, to impart instruction, instill doctrine into one; prescribe a thing; to explain, expound; to teach one something.” Merriam-Webster defines discourse as “a long and formal treatment of a subject in speech or writing, lecture, treatise, dissertation.”
The Bible never uses the word teach to describe participation from a crowd in a discourse being delivered by a teacher. It is used of the speech, lecture or dissertation itself, not of comments from those who are hearing it.
Consider a few examples from the secular world to demonstrate the point. If a student in a public school classroom speaks, whether it be a question or a comment, has that student suddenly become the teacher of the class? Or if a college student speaks in the lecture hall, whether it be a question or a comment, has that student somehow become a college professor? It doesn’t matter whether it is a public school classroom, a community college lecture hall or the assembly of the local church – participation in a class does not make the participant the teacher of the class.
I have heard it affirmed that every male in a Bible class could be considered a teacher; that each and every man has the ability and authority to assist the teacher in teaching the class, and thus become teachers themselves. A Bible class comprised of 10 men and 10 women does not have 10 teachers and 10 students. It has one teacher and 19 students. Those who participate, whether men or women, are not teachers (again, the New Testament never uses the word teach in this way), but are students.
Paul says the woman is not to “teach or have authority over a man.” Who has the authority in a class setting? Authority does not belong to every man in the class, but to the one who is leading the class. If we grant that every man is an authority in the class, we invite the type of confusion that reigned in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:26). If every man in the class has authority, why do we appoint a teacher?If every man in the class has authority, why is there one man standing apart from the rest?
1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not an injunction against women participating in a Bible class: it is an injunction against her being the teacher, the one who has authority in the class, for a woman is not “to teach or have authority over” men.
In John 4, Jesus taught the Samaritan woman and eventually the entire city of Sychar. In the course of their conversation, there is no doubt that Jesus is the teacher, yet the woman made more affirmative statements than she asked questions. Jesus did not rebuke her for trying to teach Him or usurp His authority, but answered her questions and addressed her concerns in order to effectively teach her.
In Acts 18, Apollos, an eloquent and powerful preacher, came to Ephesus. Aquila and Priscilla were among those who heard him speak, and they heard him teach John’s baptism rather than baptism into Christ. Verse 26 says, “When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Who took him aside? Both. Who explained to him the way of God more accurately? Both. We don’t have details about the conversation, but the text tells us that Priscilla was involved. She participated in a submissive fashion, not violating the authority of her husband, not taking the lead in the study, not becoming the teacher; but was still able to participate.
But what if a man learns something from a woman’s comment?
Is a woman’s ability to participate in a class to be determined by the lowest Bible knowledge among the men? If the teacher poses the question, “How many days did Jesus spend with His disciples after His resurrection?” and a woman answers, “40,” has she just become the teacher of the brother who did not know this? Does the grade 1 student who answers a simple addition question become the teacher to any children who didn’t know the answer? Again, we need to use the word teach in the same way the Bible does, and call one a teacher in the same way the Bible does.
What if her comment steers the class in a different direction?
First, we should not use the possibility that something wrong might happen to justify binding something beyond what the Scriptures bind.
Second, do we think it is acceptable for a brother to do this? Hijacking someone’s class is wrong, whether it is done by a man or a woman. Yes, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 addresses women; they are not to teach or usurp authority. However, that doesn’t mean that the men in a class setting are free to usurp the authority of the one who is appointed to teach.
There are two occasions that come to mind where Jesus was teaching and someone from the crowd spoke up, essentially changing the direction of the discourse. It would seem that it lies in the teacher’s discretion (since he is the one with authority in the class) whether to pursue the topic raised or to defer discussion on that topic until a later time. In both cases where we find one from the crowd speaking off topic while Jesus taught, the Lord chose to change the course of His teaching to accommodate their comments.
In Luke 12, Jesus warned people about the scribes and Pharisees, and then cautioned against the blasphemy of the Spirit. As He taught, a man from the crowd spoke up, selfishly demanding, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance” (v 13). Jesus rebuked the man (He wasn’t there to settle family disputes), and then chose to teach on covetousness. Through the course of this event, Jesus did not cease to be the teacher, nor did this man become the teacher. His request was off topic and out of line, but did not somehow give him or make him the authority or teacher on that occasion.
One chapter earlier, Jesus poke about casting out demons by the power of God, and the need to fill what has been cleansed with good, lest evil come once more and reside there. The text tells us that “a certain woman from the crowd raise her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!'” (Luke 11:27). The woman made an affirmative statement, unrelated to Jesus’ discourse. One verse later, we see that Jesus took her statement and from it, He taught, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (v 28). Through the course of this event, Jesus did not cease to be the teacher, nor did this woman become the teacher. Her statement was off topic, but unlike the man in Luke 12, it does not appear that it was out of line (Jesus did not rebuke her). Her statement did not somehow give or make her the authority or teacher on that occasion.
But 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids her to speak
Let’s read through the text:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
The word “silence” here is from the Greek sigao, defined as “to keep silent; hold one’s peace … to be kept in silence, be concealed” (Thayer’s). Hesuchia, used in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 governs the manner of speech (quietness, not causing a disturbance); it allowed speech, but acknowledged deference to authority. Sigao however demands absolute silence, no speech at all.
This text is not a blanket injunction against women speaking in church. It is a specific application of 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which teaches that she is not to “teach or usurp authority.” She is not permitted to take a leadership role in the assembly. It is essential that we understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in it’s context if we are to understand what Paul is forbidding.
That the text is not forbidding all speech is evidence for a few reasons:
- If women are not permitted to speak at all, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 would have used sigao rather than hesuchia. There is a reason for Paul using two distinct words.
- Ephesians 5:19 tells us to “speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” In fact, Colossians 3:16 says when we are doing so, we are “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.”
1 Corinthians 14 is part of a 3 chapter context addressing miraculous gifts. Chapter 12 introduces the gifts; chapter 13 speaks about their duration; and chapter 14 addresses their use in he assembly. In chapter 14, the word laleo (to speak) appears 24 times. Consistently it is used to address miraculous revelation (prophesy, tongues, etc.). These would be used by those who were leading the congregation in their worship and instruction. Paul did not stray away from the miraculous context in verses 34-35. There was no need for him to specifically mention tongues, prophecy, revelation, etc., for a woman was not to teach or usurp authority over a man. Though she might have a miraculous gift, she was not permitted to use it in the assembly. Thus, in a context about the use of spiritual gifts, Paul says “they are not permitted to speak” (v 34).
The word sigao (silence) is used 3 times in the text. In verse 28, it is used of the male tongue speakers, “if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church.” In verse 30, it is used of the male prophets, “if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.” And then in verse 34, it is used of the women, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive…”
Again, set into the context, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbade women from using their spiritual gifts in the assembly. Any conclusion but this avoids the context and leaves the text open to misuse and abuse. It is a specific application of the principle established in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Does this make it a useless text, since the time of miraculous gifts has passed? Absolutely not. Do we discount John 14-16 because it contains some promises specific to the apostles and not for us? Are there still not things to learn, as we rightly divide the word? Despite the miraculous context of 1 Corinthians 14, there are timeless principles given:
- Do things with the spirit and the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:15)
- Let all things be done for edification (1 Corinthians 14:26)
- God is not the author of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33)
- Let all things be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40)
As the law also says
Above we have used a few examples that some might discount because they happened under the Old Law (the Samaritan woman of John 4; the woman who spoke up in Luke 11). What makes these Old Testament texts valid for our discussion? In both 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, Paul appeals to the Old Testament as the source for what he wrote.
In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul links the woman not teaching or having authority in the assembly to creation itself. Genesis 2:18 identifies Eve as “a helper comparable” to Adam. In Genesis 3:16, Eve is told “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The authority structure established by God in the home is the basis for the authority structure in the local church as well.
1 Corinthians 14:34 says the women are “to be submissive, as the law also says.” There are no “a woman shall not be a priest” texts in the Old Testament, but consistently texts speaking about the Levitical priesthood identify them as male (ie. Leviticus 21:1-4). That said, there were women prophets in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:20-21; Judges 4:4-5; 2 Kings 22:14-17; 2 Chronicles 34:22-25). Each of these women used their ability to prophesy in the presence of men, and yet without violating the submissive role which the law prescribed for them.
The submissive role for women is prescribed by God for the home (Genesis 2:18; 3:16; Numbers 30:1-16; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6) and the assembly of God’s people (Leviticus 21:1-4; etc; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Chronicles 14:34-35) in both the Old and New Testaments. However, no text states that every woman is subject or submissive to every man in every setting. In fact, Deborah served as a judge over Israel. This gave her judicial and political authority in the nation over men and women, including over Barak, a military captain in Israel (Judges 4:4-9), but she did not have religious authority (did not and could not serve as a priest).
Let her ask her own husband at home
1 Corinthians 14:35 reads, “if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” What is she prohibited from doing in church? What is she to do with her husband at home?
A straight reading of the verse, void of it’s context, would mean it is wrong for a woman to ask a question for the purpose of learning or seeking clarification. If someone wanted to take a super literal reading of the verse, they might conclude that a woman is not to learn anything at the assembly; all her learning should done at home with her husband. I don’t know anyone who takes that position, but if we are going to completely ignore the context of the verse, it is as valid an explanation as any other that might be given. We must keep in mind that Paul is addressing the fact that women cannot use their miraculous gifts in the assembly; his words are not about limiting her capacity or opportunity for learning.
When people see the words “learn” and “ask” in the text, it is assumed by some that she desires clarification about something that was said in the assembly. Again, this ignores the miraculous gift context. The speech under consideration are miraculous gifts, and the women were not permitted to use them in the assembly. so, where and when can she use her gifts? I suggest Paul is saying in verse 35 that she is to ask her husband at home, not questions about what happened at the assembly, but to use her gifts in his presence at home. One of the definitions given by Thayer for manthano (learn) is “learn by reason of use.” If she wants to use her gifts, let her ask her husband at home – ask permission, not a question.
Wouldn’t she be usurping her husband’s authority? If God’s word tells her to ask her husband at home, then the Lord did not count it a violation of the husband’s authority. And presumably, if his conscience is weak and he feels threatened by it, he would have the right to say no. To give a modern equivalent, my wife cannot lead a song that she knows which others do not in the assembly. For her to lead the assembly in song (any song, whether known or unknown to the group) would usurp authority and cause her to become a leader. However, in the privacy of our home, she can share her knowledge of the song with me.
Conclusion
May we not bind where God has not bound, nor loose where God has not loosed. Let us consider the instruction given in Paul’s letter, along with the examples of women’s participation in spiritual activities recorded in the Bible, and be sure that we are doing things God’s way, not our own.
