Women in Society

Most of us are aware that the role of women in our society has changed dramatically over the past hundred years or so. Many historians and sociologists point to World War I as the turning point in our western society. The bulk of an entire generation of young men went to war and never came back. There was such enormous bloodshed during the Great War of 1914-1918 that horrified statesmen and men of influence insisted that war must come to an end. The Great War needed to be the "war to end all wars!" The League of Nations was formed with the intent of establishing world peace, but it failed in its task, collapsing under the looming storm clouds of World War II.

Let's look at some of the sociological factors that were involved as a result of this first Great War. With such a large reduction in the number of men in society during and after World War I, more women had to carry the weight of responsibility in feeding and caring for their families. With women's increased responsibility and social contact came the desire for increased interaction as fully functioning members of society, and the movement supporting women's right to vote became a burning issue of the day in the United States. With the passage of the Women's Suffrage Act in 1920, women at last became voting equals with men as citizens and members of society. At least, that was the ideal.

During World War II, as another generation of men was drafted and sent off to war, someone was needed to run the factories to produce the weapons of war, and again the women came to the aid of their countries. "Rosie the Riveter," a fanciful female American steelworker, became the world's ideal for women getting out there and working hard to support their men in uniform, so we could win the war.

Following World War II, when the fighting men and women came back to their place in the work force, it became difficult for women to simply disappear back into their traditional mold. It became apparent that, not only was the world freed from the terror of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but our women had also found that they could, indeed, work as hard as men and produce as much output, and earn livings right alongside the men. Not only was the world freed, but our women found that they were also freed from the old mold!

During the decades following World War II, massive upheavals in western civilization took place. Today we see women taking an increasingly responsible role in running the affairs of business and government. However, at the same time more and more men are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find gainful employment with enough salary to support a family, thanks in part to the increased competition for available jobs.

Today, in our emancipated society, our girls go through school and on into college right alongside our boys, and our women go out and compete equally with our men for jobs. At the same time, we see many of our young women no longer looking forward to raising a family as a primary goal in their lives, but rather setting career goals and acquiring material possessions.

The American ideal, along with the ideals of other Western nations, is that no person is superior to anyone else because of their race, religion, or sex. Such is the society in which we find ourselves today.

Today, amid this backdrop of social equality, we must attempt to determine where our women fit into our religious practices, and how we can utilize the talents they bring to church services without violating God's commands in the Bible regarding women in the ekklesia.

Defining the Debate

There are two major viewpoints among church people regarding the role of women. Both perspectives deal with whether a woman may participate in church services, or in what way a woman may participate. Both sides bring in scriptural evidence to support their claims. The difference is mainly in how people of each viewpoint read the scriptures.

The traditional view is that women do not have any role at all in leading services or in sermonizing, although few people object to a woman singing along with hymns or performing a musical offering as a soloist. We might look on this as the "conservative" point of view.

The other outlook, which we might think of as being more "liberal," would allow women to have full participation in services, including making presentations or leading Bible studies.

A more excessive aspect of this second viewpoint would permit a woman to pastor a congregation, but that's not within the scope of this article. We're examining the issue of whether a woman should be allowed to speak during services, or teach a lesson. (We might mention in passing, though, that none of our editors believes that women ought to take on the role of church pastor or religious leader, although we have seen it done in extreme circumstances, when it has been necessary.)

Contrasting Viewpoints

Two passages of scripture appear more frequently than any others in the discussion of this topic. Let's review these briefly.

Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation,

"Let your women keep silence in the churches [Greek ekklesia]: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church [ekklesia]" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, KJV).

To the evangelist Timothy Paul wrote,

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12, KJV).

For many people, that constitutes a clear "Thus saith the Lord" on the subject. Women are not to speak during church services, and are to remain silent.

But there are some problems involved -- not with Paul, or with what he wrote, but with our understanding of what Paul actually wrote, which then leads to misunderstandings about what he meant.

One problem arises when husbands accept this "husband as absolute ruler, woman as subservient" concept, and carry it home with them, so that the wives are expected to keep silent at home, as well! Fortunately, that doesn't take place in all homes. Another problem comes from the idea that women are inferior, intellectually or otherwise, and have no business trying to use their brain power in the "man's world" of preaching and teaching.

So we need to ask some specific questions: What does Paul mean when he says "speak," "silence," "subjection," or "in the ekklesia"? Are women to remain absolutely silent, not singing, not allowed to cough, or to comfort or discipline their children? Most people would be quick to say, "Well, of course that's not what it means."

Then, what does it mean "to speak" -- does Paul mean any act of vocalization, or does he mean making a formal, prepared presentation? Where in the law does it say women are to be silent during church services? Why must they ask their husbands at home in order to learn anything -- did Paul consider women to be too dense to understand what the teacher is saying when he is saying it?

Why would it be a shame for a woman to speak in the assembly? What does "in the church" mean -- during an assembly of the ekklesia, or every minute of her life after she is baptized? Does it mean during "formal church services" but not during Bible studies or open forums? Why should women be subjected into silence, and how is vocalizing usurping authority?

We need to understand that Paul was not violating other principles he had already established. He had written in another place that

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).

On another occasion he wrote,

"...there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11).

These passages tend to make it sound as if Paul was actually in favor of equality among all the members, so that no distinctions were drawn between Christians from various races or backgrounds, or from either sex. This doesn't match with the idea that women are to be treated virtually as inferiors.

Yet, on the other hand, those who wish to have women participate fully in services, with no restrictions on speaking or leading, may in fact be violating Paul's apparently clear commands quoted earlier. If that's the case, there may be problems with the more liberal viewpoint, as well.

As is often the case, the truth of the matter may very well lie somewhere in the middle. It's possible that both of the extremes are wrong. We always encourage our readers to examine all the facts before making up their minds. With that in mind, we need to seek a greater understanding of these scriptures, to help us answer these questions.

Whichever side of this debate anyone may favor, the most important thing we can do is to examine our own motives, deep down inside, and determine if we are truly set to accept God's will on a matter, and do as His word teaches. If that is not our true motivation, we may find that we are merely attempting to further our own agenda, or put our own interpretation of scripture on an equal footing with what God wants us to do. If that's the case, we need to stop and make sure our motivation is pure. If it isn't, this will demonstrate to God that we are still weak in our human condition. Our main motivation must always be to serve and please God! Once we have that straight, we can proceed with our studies, no matter what the subject matter may be.

A Woman's Role in Ancient Society

We need to go back still further in time to get a better overall picture of how women fit into various cultures throughout history. "A woman's place" during most of human history has been a place of subjugation, second class citizen status, or that of a piece of property which can be bought and owned. The concept of a woman having any kind of "rights" would be laughable to men of many past generations. It might be difficult for us to place ourselves mentally into that type of setting, but doing so will help us to understand just how it was that this new sect of Christianity, this new Way of life, differed so radically from the way people had been accustomed to living.

The Apostle Paul wrote his general epistles to congregations of believers living in Gentile areas of the Roman Empire. The secular Roman/Grecian culture of the day was strongly influenced by the pagan philosophers, primarily Socrates (470-399 B.C.), Plato (427-347 B.C.), and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Socrates taught, for example, that in every regard women were "the weaker sex," and that being a woman was a punishment, since women were halfway between being animal and human. (It might be interesting to learn what kind of women were in Socrates' life -- what his mother was like, or his sisters, or his wife, etc. -- for him to have developed such a strong dislike toward half the human race!)

In the Greek culture of that time, the men loved to get together and discuss philosophy, or go to sporting events, while the women stayed behind, never being allowed to venture out of the house very far. Social, cultural and educational opportunities for women were very limited.

Aristotle furthered the notion of sexual inequality with comments such as these: "The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying." "The difference between husband and wife is like that of a man's soul and his body, as the soul is meant to command the arms and legs."

Later, the philosopher Zeno (335-265 B.C.) objected to how men used women so freely for recreational purposes. He was not concerned with the plight of women, but rather that men were in this way distracted from the more pure and preferred pursuit of philosophy! Zeno's followers became known as the Stoics, from the stoa poikile (or painted colonnade) in the marketplace in Athens, which was apparently the spot from which Zeno chose to teach. The Stoics became champions of celibacy and restraint. Women were considered a distraction and a temptation to men.

By the time of Christ, the well-known Jewish philosopher Philo (15 B.C. - 50 A.D.), a resident of Alexandria, Egypt, was attempting to bring Jewish thought more in line with the Hellenistic world in which they lived, and his writings combined aspects of Plato with biblical subjects. Philo also taught a disdain of womanhood along the lines of the Greek philosophers' teachings. Later, Josephus, the Jewish historian, continued in the same vein, although the well-known Jewish sage Gamaliel, who appears briefly in the Bible (Acts 5:34; 22:3), apparently did not concur with the negative view of womanhood.

An interesting historical note about Philo: He believed that God was completely removed from the affairs of men -- an unknowable God. He postulated a second God, who would be an intermediary between the unknowable God and His creation. Philo named this intermediary "Logos." Of course, we know that the Greek word logos means "word," or "spoken utterance," and is translated so in John 1:1. However, Philo interpreted this Logos to be the sum total of the eternal thoughts and ideas, and the creative power, that had gone into creating the universe. It looks as if the influence of Philo's writings and teachings reached into the New Testament church, because Paul confirmed that it is Christ who is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). John later wrote in the beginning of his gospel that the Logos was, indeed, the One who had created all things and had come down from heaven as a human (John 1:1-14).

From the first century A.D. forward, there was a tendency among leaders in the increasingly apostate Christian church to interpret scripture according to the Greek viewpoint, especially in the budding Roman Catholic Church, and later in its Protestant descendants. In the 13th century, for example, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) systematized the religious beliefs of his church and brought them into a closer harmony with ancient Greek ideals, including the negative view of womanhood. He and later theologians thus interpreted Paul's writings according to this world view.

Readers of "The WAY" are aware that the King James Version of the Bible is not the pure and authoritative English translation we had been led to believe that it was. Rather, King James himself, and his politics, directly influenced the translators. History shows that, not only were variant translations in the margin not allowed by King James, but all other English translations (Wycliffe, Geneva, Coverdale, the Great Bible, etc.) were destroyed by fire, along with some of the people who owned them and refused to give them up! The majority of English language thought on the Bible and religious matters since that time has leaned heavily on the King James Version. Therefore it's only natural that some of the KJV's biases crept into his religious thought and, as a result, into ours.

This brief tour through history may help us to see how our own view of womanhood may be skewed because of what came before us, and even by our own trusted Bibles concealing the truth rather than revealing it! We're not going to suggest that the KJV says "black" when it should have said "white," but we need to come to a deeper understanding of some of these verses by examining them more closely. When we note that women in the first century assembly were treated differently than they had been either in the Jewish synagogue or in Hellenistic society, that tends to point out the discrepancy in our current understanding. The women of the ekklesia were apparently treated better than they were elsewhere, which may also have resulted in the large number of righteous women mentioned in many scriptures.

A New and Different Way

Paul and the other apostles and disciples came preaching, not just about Jesus and salvation, but about a new Way of life! Coming into the fellowship meant not only giving up a life of sin, but also re-thinking the meaning and purpose of life. A wife was elevated from the status of a slave, an animal, or an inferior life form, to a fully functioning partner -- a help meet -- for her husband, and co-heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7).

What is a "help meet"? The term has often been mispronounced as "help-mate." This tells part of the story, but a fuller understanding of the role of the wife is needed, and Paul was there to teach that new Way.

If we look back to Genesis, we can read the term:

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18-20).

The word "meet" used in this sense is an obsolete word, no longer in use in today's English. It means "fitting," or "appropriate." The phrase "help meet" simply means a suitable or appropriate helper. The phrase is translated from the Hebrew 'ezer (Strong's #5828), which in these two verses is translated "help meet" in the KJV, but the other 19 times it appears in Scripture it is translated simply as "help." Eve was a suitable, appropriate help for Adam, in the context that all the other life forms existed as male and female.

Paul's writings emphasize that, in Christ, there is no need for the separations that existed between people of various races, nationalities, status in life, or even the social barriers that existed between genders. There is no reason, in Christ, to "put down" another member of the assembly because of being a Jew, slave, barbarian -- or a woman. Christianity brought a new meaning to the idea of the wife as an appropriate helper. Truly, this was a new and different Way!

Going Back to the Original Languages

What about the verses we quoted earlier in this article, indicating that women had little or no part in the life of the ekklesia? We can derive a greater understanding of the words quoted in the New Testament scriptures by going back to the Greek and examining them in more detail.

We must remember that, no matter which translation of the Bible we use, it's only a translation! We can often gain more understanding of what was meant in any given passage by consulting the original languages. Is it possible that there might be subtle shades of meaning which have been lost, or at least concealed, because of the improper translation of the Greek thought? As we have seen in other word studies, this is exactly the case!

Part Two: 1 Timothy 2

Let's consider the well-known verse used to forbid women to have any vocal part in any teaching taking place on Sabbaths:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:12, KJV).

Let's begin by defining who is being discussed in this passage. Notice the context:

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:1-5, NASB).

Each of the words "man" and "men" emphasized above are translated from the Greek word anthropos (Strong's #444), which primarily means any human being, not just the males. We could restate this passage to say that prayers could be made on behalf of everyone, that God desires all people to be saved, and there is a mediator between God and mankind, the human Jesus Christ. These would all be satisfactory translations of anthropos.

A change takes place in the Greek, though, which is lost on the English language readers. Notice verse 8:

"Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension."

This time, "men" is translated from another Greek word, aner (Strong's #435), which has the meaning, not just of mankind in general, but more specifically of the husbands! The word is used to denote the man rather than the woman, and an adult male rather than a juvenile male.

But does this mean that only the husbands are to pray? Let's continue:

"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (verses 9-12).

Here, the word "woman" is translated from gune (Strong's #1135), and can mean "women" in general, but in proximity to the word aner (husband), it can only mean "wife." "Man" in verse 12 is again translated from aner.

A note on language usage: When aner and gune are used in the same context, the proper translation would not be "man" and "woman," but rather "husband" and "wife."

Often, at the end of wedding ceremonies, we can hear the familiar phrase: "I now pronounce you man and wife." This is a mixture of definitions. The preacher might better pronounce them to be "husband and wife." It's evident that they are a man and a woman. The preacher would probably never pronounce them to be "husband and woman." But "man and wife," although incorrect, has become acceptable in our language.

There is a similar situation in the case of the Greek words aner and gune. They are understood to mean "husband" and "wife" when used together, and to translate them as "man" and "woman" actually conceals the true meaning of the Greek text!

The key to understanding this verse is in knowing the proper translation of the Greek grammar for the verb "to teach." Paul uses the word didasko (Strong's #1321), which Thayer's Lexicon defines as: "(1) to teach, to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses, to be a teacher ... (2) to teach one, to impart instruction, instill doctrine into one ..." Paul was indeed referring to women in the act of instructing! But that's not the whole story.

Because of One Comma

There was another subtle difference between what the KJV states and how most modern translations read. Notice again verse 12, from the NASB:

"But I do not allow a woman [Greek: gune, wife] to teach or exercise authority over a man [aner, husband], but to remain quiet."

There is a comma added in the KJV text which is not in most modern translations! Without the additional comma, the sense of the sentence would be that Paul was not forbidding women to teach in church services, but rather to both teach, and grasp control from, their husbands!

If this is what Paul was saying, then many people have had a misunderstanding of this verse for a long time. As we will see, this is indeed what Paul was saying!

The Infinitive Mood

If we look a bit more deeply, we will find that the grammar Paul used for the phrases "to teach" and "usurp authority" are in the present tense, active voice and infinitive mood. As we will see, this changes the whole flavor of the translation and, consequently, our understanding of the verse.

The infinitive mood signifies that the action spoken of "pertains to continuous or repeated action, without any implications as to when the action takes place" (The Complete Word Study New Testament, ed. Zodhiates).

Zodhiates comments on this passage at 1 Timothy 2:9-15:

"The key to understanding what the Apostle Paul is teaching is that woman should not try to appear or act like men. In addition to this, they should not attempt to usurp the position of their husbands in the home and in the church. God has appointed specific tasks for both women and for men. Childbearing is reserved for women, just as the role of a husband is set aside for men. Paul emphatically states that these were differences created by God Himself. ..."

"In verse nine, the Greek word sophrosune [Strong's #4997] ... provides the clue for the interpretation of this difficult passage. This Greek word, translated 'sobriety' [in KJV], means 'the voluntary limitations of one's freedom of thought and behavior,' or 'sober mindedness.' The truth is that in Christianity women became free and equal to their husbands. Nevertheless, there was always a danger that they might take this freedom beyond the limitations that God had placed when He appointed man as head over woman in the marital relationship. No two people or things can be exactly the same. The inherent differences in people and things must be recognized by a sophron, or a 'sober minded' person. This is one who recognizes his abilities and his limitations, and is mindful of his behavior in certain given circumstances."

Zodhiates later comments, "Furthermore, the word for 'teach' in this verse is the Greek infinitive didaskein (1321). In this instance, it means 'to teach continuously.' The situation refers to the home, and assembly, or anywhere the husband and wife may be interacting together. If this were the case, the position of the husband as the head would be undermined, and would not be in accordance with God's ordained order in creation. A wife should place limitations on her speech. Paul does not want women to be lackluster or mute, but to be careful lest they go beyond the bounds of accepted propriety.

"Moreover, the word translated 'to usurp authority over' is the Greek word authentein (831). Essentially, a wife's private or public life should be beyond reproach and never undermine the position that her husband has been given by God. Also, a wife should never encroach upon the role of her husband."

Then, what Paul was saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 is: "I do not allow a wife to continuously teach, or to continually exercise authority over, her husband"!

The husband is to teach the wife. The wife should not be teaching the husband. For a husband to be asking his wife about the scriptures (especially in those days when women were not formally educated at all) is not appropriate, and does not fit into the universal family concept found throughout all nations and cultures, where the husband is the head of the household.

In today's society, there might be one exception to this principle. If a wife has been attending church services for years, as a member of the ekklesia, and then her husband is called and comes into the assembly, the wife may likely have more Bible knowledge than the husband. In this case, the husband might not be able to answer the wife's questions because of a lack of skill in the Word. A loving wife would want to bring her newly baptized husband along in the faith by teaching him what she knows, and there should be no problem involved with her sharing her knowledge under these circumstances. However, the husband is still the head of the family. The wife is still not allowed to dominate, even if she has superior Bible knowledge.

Usurping Authority

As we saw earlier, the phrase "usurp authority over" is translated from the single Greek word authenteo (Strong's #831). This is an unusual word. It only occurs this one time in the Greek scriptures. Strong defines it to mean "to act of oneself, i.e., (fig.) dominate." However, Thayer's Lexicon goes on to define the word to mean, "(1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself; (2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic; (3) an absolute master; (4) to govern, exercise dominion over one."

Well! We can just see Paul telling Timothy, "I don't allow a wife to instruct her husband or to take his life"!

Yet, Zodhiates verifies that this is a correct definition. He defines authenteo as:

"A self-appointed killer with one's own hands, one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a genitive, to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer (1 Tim. 2:12)" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament).

Zodhiates also notes that, in Greek, a verb in the infinitive form "has many more uses than it does in English, most of which are idiomatic and difficult to translate properly." This may well be one of those places!

Unquestionably, though, the overall sense of these two verses is a clarification on how wives should submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22). In fact, with this new understanding of what Paul was saying, we might better translate verses 11 and 12 along these lines: "Let a wife learn in peace, fully subordinate; and I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or domineering over her husband; rather she is to remain at peace. I do not allow a wife to continually teach or continually dominate her husband."

Notice how Zodhiates addresses these issues:

"These verses [1 Timothy 2:9-15] indicate that women were full and active members in the early church. ... From an examination of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, it is also clear that both wives and husbands could pray and prophecy in the worship service. ... In all this discussion, Paul's chief concern is that no woman would be of immoral character" (Zodhiates).

What about verse 11?

"Let the woman [wife] learn in silence with all subjection" (KJV).

Contrast that with the NASB:

"Let a woman [wife] quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness."

Which is correct?

Zodhiates comments on the phrase "in silence with all subjection":

"The subsequent term to consider is hesuchia [Strong's #2271], translated 'silence.' In the NT it occurs numerous times referring to tranquillity or the state of being undisturbed. This should be the understanding in this verse. One must bear in mind here that during the era of time when Paul was writing, it was usually men who were the ones to receive an education. If this word meant 'complete silence,' women would never have the opportunity to ask questions or increase her knowledge of the Scriptures. Simply speaking, the wife ought to be displaying a tranquil spirit in her attempt to learn. The final word of key importance in understanding the 'silence' mentioned in this verse is hupotage [Strong's #5292, translated 'subjection' in KJV] meaning "to place in proper order." ... Paul wanted to express the idea that in the wife's desire to learn, she should respect her husband's position over her in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3)."

Written by: Dale D. Carmean and Jack M. Lane
Taken from "The Way" Magazine.