Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the November 1984 Christian Courier. It was published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
The notion has long been prevalent in sectarian circles (and is growing in the church of the Lord) that there are no sexual distinctions to be observed in Christ. The claim is made that Paul, in Galatians 3:28 abolished sexual differences so that men and women may function in identical capacities in public church activity; preaching, leading prayers, perhaps even serving as elders, etc. Such a theory is at variance with the New Testament for the following reasons.
First, it ignores the context of Galatians 3:28. In this portion of scripture the apostle is dealing with sexual equality in the matter of salvation but as Professor Colin Brown observes, Paul's statement, "is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather, it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation history. As Paul goes on to say, 'And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise' (Galatians 3:29; cf. Romans 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same status before god but they do not necessarily have the same function" (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, II, p. 570.) The fact that Paul later instructs servants to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5ff) in spite of the fact that Galatians 3:28 says there is, "neither bond nor free" in Christ, is in itself a refutation of the theory under consideration.
Second, Paul himself was unaware that his teaching abolished sexual roles for when he wrote I Timothy, which was penned later than Galatians, he limited the public service of women.
The New Testament makes it very clear that the men are to lead the acts of worship in assemblies of mixed sexes. In I Timothy 2:8, Paul instructs that, "the men (andras, accusative plural of aner, thus males only) pray in every place." Now why would an apostle stress that only males pray in every place when it is abundantly clear that women can pray (I Corinthians 11:5), indeed, they can pray in every place? Obviously there is a special kind of praying under consideration. It is the leading of prayer in public worship that is in view.
Commenting upon this verse, a noted Greek scholar has well said, "The ministers of public prayer must be the men of the congregation, not the women" (The Expositor's Greek Testament, IV, p. 106). Bengel says that Paul is, "speaking of public prayers, in which the heart of the people follows close after the language of him who prays" (Gnomon of the New Testament, IV, p. 252). Bloomfield notes that the expression, "in every place" means, "in every or any place (appropriate to public prayers)" (Greek Testament with English Notes, II, p. 356). Ellicott says the allusion of the passage, "is clearly to public prayer; cf. verse 1. 'The men' is thus in antithesis to 'the women,' verse 9. The conducting of the public prayers more particularly belonged to the men..." (Epistles of Paul, p. 48). The foregoing observations could be multiplied many times over and they stand in bold relief to the superficial reflections of the modern liberationists who would have us go beyond that which is written!
In I Timothy 2:12 Paul declares, "I permit not a woman to teach nor to have dominion over a man but to be in quietness." The negative conjunction oude (nor) here is explanatory in force, revealing that the apostle is forbidding any teaching or similar activity in which a woman exercises authority over a man (cf. Lenski, Commentary, p. 563; Arndt & Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 595). And it is patently obvious from the preceding context that he considers leading a public prayer as an act of authority over those who are thus led! It is therefore, a serious error to advocate the idea that women may lead the worship in groups of mixed sexes. And we might add that the principle not only applies to formal worship services, such as those of the Lord's day but also those semi-private "devotionals" wherein both men and women are jointly worshiping. The New Testament does not authorize a woman to lead a man in worship under any circumstances.
It is becoming increasingly fashionable to assert that the New Testament instruction which limits the sphere of woman's leadership activity, is grounded in cultural peculiarities of first century society and so is not applicable today. Some appear to be suggesting in fact, that if one does not have a Ph.D. in Hebrew, Greek and Roman cultural anthropology, there's not much of the New Testament he can understand!
How then can one know whether a New Testament teaching is age-lasting or whether it is merely culturally oriented, hence temporal? Let me suggest some guidelines.
a. If a particular context is, by an inspired writer, specifically connected with primitive customs, then the teaching may unquestionably be viewed in that light.
b. If a certain context is ambiguous, that is, if one cannot decide whether it deals with abiding principle or temporal culture, he should in humility ask, "What is the safest course to pursue?"
c. If a context is, by the divine writer, grounded in historical truth that relates to man as man, hence transcends the cultural, that should settle the matter. One is dealing with an age-lasting injunction.
Now to the business at hand. In the four major contexts where Paul discusses male and female relationships (I Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:33-35; Ephesians 5:22-23; I Timothy 2:8-15), the principle of subjection and the application of that principle to specific situations (e.g., a woman not leading men in prayer) are based upon historical facts that go back to the very commencement of the human family. It is thus not a culturally oriented instruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment