“…your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” - Gen. 3:16
We have only a partial idea of what the role of women in human society was intended to be because sin has skewed the relationship between the sexes. Recognizing how male and female traits would become distorted due to sin, Jehovah predicted the outcome in Genesis 3:16 and we can see the realization of those words in evidence everywhere in the world today. In fact, the domination of men over woman is so pervasive that it often passes for the norm rather than the aberration it really is.
As apostate thinking infected the Christian congregation, so did male bias. Jehovah’s Witnesses would have us believe that they alone understand the proper relationship between men and women that should exist in the Christian congregation. However, what does the printed literature of JW.org prove to be the case?
The Demotion of Deborah
The Insight book recognizes that Deborah was a prophetess in Israel, but fails to acknowledge her distinctive role as judge. It gives that distinction to Barak. (See it-1 p. 743)
This continues to be the position of the Organization as evidenced by these excerpts from the August 1, 2015 Watchtower:
“When the Bible first introduces Deborah, it refers to her as “a prophetess.” That designation makes Deborah unusual in the Bible record but hardly unique. Deborah had another responsibility. She was also evidently settling disputes by giving Jehovah’s answer to problems that came up. — Judges 4:4, 5
Deborah lived in the mountainous region of Ephraim, between the towns of Bethel and Ramah. There she would sit beneath a palm tree and serve the people as Jehovah directed.” (p. 12)
“Serve the people”? The writer can’t even bring himself to use the word the Bible uses.
“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under Deborah’s palm tree between Ramah and Bethel in the mountainous region of Ephraim; the Israelites would go up to her for judgment.” (Jg 4:4, 5)
Instead of recognizing Deborah as the Judge she was, the article continues the JW tradition of assigning that role to Barak, though he is never referred to in Scripture as a Judge.
“He commissioned her to summon a strong man of faith, Judge Barak, and direct him to rise up against Sisera.” (p. 13)
Gender Bias in Translation
In Romans 16:7, Paul sends his greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are outstanding among the apostles. Now Junia in Greek is a woman’s name. It is derived from the name of the pagan goddess Juno to whom women prayed to help them during childbirth. The NWT substitutes “Junias”, which is a made-up name not found anywhere in classical Greek literature. Junia, on the other hand, is common in such writings and always refers to a woman.
To be fair to the translators of the NWT, this literary sex-change operation is performed by most Bible translators. Why? One must assume that male bias is at play. Male church leaders just could not stomach the idea of a female apostle.
Jehovah’s View of Women
A prophet is a human who speaks under inspiration. In other words, a human who is serving as God’s spokesperson or his channel of communication. That Jehovah would use women in this role helps us to see how he views women. It should help the male of the species to adjust his thinking despite the bias that creeps in due to the sin we have inherited from Adam. Here are some of the female prophets that Jehovah has used down through the ages:
“Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her with tambourines and with dances.” (Ex 15:20)
“So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess. She was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah son of Harhas, the caretaker of the wardrobe, and she was dwelling in the Second Quarter of Jerusalem; and they spoke to her there.” (2 Ki 22:14)
Deborah was both prophet and judge in Israel. (Judges 4:4, 5)
“Now there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of Asher’s tribe. This woman was well along in years and had lived with her husband for seven years after they were married,” (Lu 2:36)
“. . .we entered into the house of Philip the evangelizer, who was one of the seven men, and we stayed with him. 9 This man had four daughters, virgins, that prophesied.” (Ac 21:8, 9)
Why Significant
The significance of this role is borne out by Paul’s words:
“And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues.” (1 Co 12:28)
“And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers,” (Eph 4:11)
One can’t help but notice that prophets are listed second, ahead of teachers, shepherds, and well ahead of those with abilities to direct.
Two Controversial Passages
From the foregoing, it would seem evident that women should have an esteemed role in the Christian congregation. If Jehovah would speak through them, causing them to utter inspired expressions, it would seem inconsistent to have a rule requiring women to remain silent in the congregation. How could we presume to silence a person through whom Jehovah has chosen to speak? Such a rule might seem logical in our male-dominated societies, but it would clearly conflict with Jehovah’s viewpoint as we’ve seen thus far.
Given this, the following two expressions of the apostle Paul would seem totally at odds with what we’ve just learned.
“. . .As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.” (1 Co 14:33-35)
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind.” (1 Ti 2:11-15)
There are no prophets today, though we are told to treat the Governing Body as if they were such, i.e., God’s appointed channel of communication. Nevertheless, the days when someone stands up in the congregation and utters God’s words under inspiration are long gone. (Whether they return in the future, only time will tell.) However, when Paul wrote these words there were female prophets in the congregation. Was Paul inhibiting the voice of God’s spirit? It seems very unlikely.
Men employing the Bible study method of eisegesis—the process of reading meaning into a verse—have made use of these verses to still the voice of women in the congregation. Let us be different. Let us approach these verses with humility, free of preconceptions, and strive to discern what the Bible is really saying.
Paul Answers a Letter
Let us deal with Paul’s words to the Corinthians first. We’ll start with a question: Why was Paul writing this letter?
It had come to his attention from Chloe’s people (1 Co 1:11) that there were some serious problems in the Corinthian congregation. There was a notorious case of gross sexual morality that was not being dealt with. (1 Co 5:1, 2) There were quarrels, and brothers are taking each other to court. (1 Co 1:11; 6:1-8) He perceived there was a danger that the stewards of the congregation might be seeing themselves as exalted over the rest. (1 Co 4:1, 2, 8, 14) It seemed that they may have been going beyond the things written and becoming boastful. (1 Co 4:6, 7)
After counselling them on those issues, he states: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote…” (1 Co 7:1) So from this point forward in his letter, he is answering questions they have put to him or addressing concerns and viewpoints they have previously expressed in another letter.
It is clear that the brothers and sisters in Corinth had lost their perspective as to the relative importance of the gifts they had been granted by holy spirit. As a result, many were attempting to speak at once and there was confusion at their gatherings; a chaotic atmosphere prevailed which might actually serve to drive away potential converts. (1 Co 14:23) Paul shows them that while there are many gifts there is only one spirit uniting them all. (1 Co 12:1-11) and that like a human body, even the most insignificant member is highly valued. (1 Co 12:12-26) He spends all of chapter 13 showing them that their esteemed gifts are nothing by comparison with the quality all of them must possess: Love! Indeed, if that were to abound in the congregation, all their problems would disappear.
Having established that, Paul shows that of all the gifts, preference should be given to prophesying because this builds up the congregation. (1 Co 14:1, 5)
To this point we see that Paul is teaching that love is the most important element in the congregation, that all members are valued, and that of all the gifts of the spirit, the one to be most preferred is that of prophesying. Then he says, “Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, . . .” (1 Co 11:4, 5)
How could he extol the virtue of prophesying and allow a woman to prophesy (the only stipulation being that she have her head covered) while also requiring women to be silent? Something is missing and so we have to look deeper.
The Problem of Punctuation
We must first be aware that in Classical Greek writings from the first century, there are no paragraph separations, punctuation, nor chapter and verse numerations. All these elements were added much later. It is up to the translator to decide where he thinks they should go to convey the meaning to a modern reader. With that in mind, let’s look at the controversial verses again, but without any of the elements added by the translator.
“Let two or three prophets speak and let the others discern the meaning but if another one receives a revelation while sitting there let the first speaker keep silent for you can all prophesy one at a time so that all may learn and all may be encouraged and gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets for God is a God not of disorder but of peace as in all the congregations of the holy ones let the women keep silent in the congregations for it is not permitted for them to speak rather let them be in subjection as the Law also says if they want to learn something let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation was it from you that the word of God originated or did it reach only as far as you if anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment but if anyone disregards this he will be disregarded So my brothers keep striving to prophesy and yet do not forbid the speaking in tongues but let all things take place decently and by arrangement” (1 Co 14:29-40)
It's rather hard to read without any of the punctuation or paragraph separations we depend on for clarity of thought. The task facing the Bible translator is formidable. He has to decide where to put these elements, but in doing so, he can change the meaning of the writer's words. Now let's look at it again as divided up by the translators of the NWT.
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. 30 But if another one receives a revelation while sitting there, let the first speaker keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one at a time, so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets. 33 For God is a God not of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.
36 Was it from you that the word of God originated, or did it reach only as far as you?
37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone disregards this, he will be disregarded. 39 So, my brothers, keep striving to prophesy, and yet do not forbid the speaking in tongues. 40 But let all things take place decently and by arrangement.” (1 Co 14:29-40)
The translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures saw fit to divide verse 33 into two sentences and further divide the thought by creating a new paragraph. However, many Bible translators leave verse 33 as a single sentence.
What if verses 34 and 35 are a quote Paul is making from the Corinthian letter? What a difference that would make!
Elsewhere, Paul either directly quotes or clearly references words and thoughts expressed to him in their letter. (For example, click on each Scriptural reference here: 1 Co 7:1; 8:1; 15:12, 14. Notice that many translators actually frame the first two in quotes, though these marks did not exist in the original Greek.) Lending support to the idea that in verses 34 and 35 Paul is quoting from the Corinthian's letter to him, is his use of the Greek disjunctive participle eta (ἤ) twice in verse 36 which can mean “or, than” but is also used as a derisive contrast to what is stated before.[i] It is the Greek way of saying a derisive "So!" or “Really?” conveying the idea that you don't agree with what you're stating. By way of comparison, consider these two verses written to these same Corinthians which also start with eta:
“Or is it only Barʹna·bas and I who do not have the right to refrain from working for a living?” (1 Co 9:6)
“Or ‘are we inciting Jehovah to jealousy’? We are not stronger than he is, are we?” (1 Co 10:22)
Paul's tone is derisive here, even mocking. He's trying to show them the folly of their reasoning, so he begins his thought with eta.
The NWT fails to provide any translation for the first eta in verse 36 and renders the second simply as “or”. But if we consider the tone of Paul’s words and the use of this participle in other places, an alternate rendering is justified.
So what if the proper punctuation should go like this:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if another one receives a revelation while sitting there, let the first speaker keep silent. For you can all prophesy one at a time, so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets. For God is a God not of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the holy ones.
“Let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.”
36 [So], was it from you that the word of God originated? [Really] did it reach only as far as you?
37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone disregards this, he will be disregarded. 39 So, my brothers, keep striving to prophesy, and yet do not forbid the speaking in tongues. 40 But let all things take place decently and by arrangement. (1 Co 14:29-40)
Now the passage doesn’t conflict with the rest of Paul’s words to the Corinthians. He is not saying that the custom in all the congregations is that women remain silent. Rather, what is common in all congregations is that there be peace and order. He is not saying that the Law says a woman should be silent, for in fact there is no such regulation in the Law of Moses. Given that, the only law remaining must be the oral law or the traditions of men, something Paul detested. Paul justifiably derides such a proud view and then contrasts their traditions with the commandment he has from the Lord Jesus. He ends by stating that if they stick to their law about women, then Jesus will cast them off. So they had better do what they can to promote freeness of speech, which includes doing all things in an orderly manner.
If we were to translate this phraseologically, we might write:
"So you're telling me that women are to be silent in the congregations?! That they're not permitted to speak, but should be in subjection as the law says?! That if they want to learn something, they should just ask their husbands when they get home, because it's disgraceful for a woman to speak up at a meeting?! Really?!! So God's Word originates with you, does it? It only got as far as you, did it? Let me tell you that if anyone thinks he's special, a prophet or someone gifted with the spirit, you'd better realize that what I'm writing to you comes from the Lord! If you want to disregard this fact, then you will be disregarded. Brothers, please, keep striving to prophecy, and to be clear, I'm not forbidding you to speak in tongues either. Just make sure that everything is done in a decent and orderly fashion.
With this understanding, Scriptural harmony is restored and the proper role of women, long established by Jehovah, is preserved.
The Situation in Ephesus
The second Scripture that causes significant controversy is that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15:
“Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind.” (1 Ti 2:11-15)
Paul’s words to Timothy make for some very odd reading if one views them in isolation. For example, the remark about childbearing raises some interesting questions. Is Paul suggesting that barren women cannot be kept safe? Are those who keep their virginity so that they can serve the Lord more fully not protected because of not having borne children? That would seem to contradict Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 7:9. And just exactly how does bearing children safeguard a woman?
Used in isolation, these verses have been employed by men down through the centuries to subjugate women, but such is not the message of our Lord. Again, to properly understand what the writer is saying, we must read the entire letter. Today, we write more letters than ever before in history. This is what email has made possible. However, we have also learned how dangerous email can be in the creation of misunderstandings between friends. I have often been surprised at how easily something I have said in an email has been misunderstood or taken the wrong way. Admittedly, I am just as guilty of doing this as the next fellow. Nevertheless, I have learned that before responding to a statement that seems particularly controversial or offensive, the best course is to reread the entire email carefully and slowly while taking into account the personality of the friend who sent it. This will often clear up many potential misunderstandings.
Therefore, we will not consider these verses in isolation but as part of a single letter. We will also consider the writer, Paul and his recipient, Timothy, whom Paul considers as his own son. (1 Ti 1:1, 2) Next, we will bear in mind that Timothy was in Ephesus at the time of this writing. (1 Ti 1:3) In those days of limited communication and travel, every city had its own distinct culture, presenting its own unique challenges to the fledgling Christian congregation. Paul’s counsel would surely have taken that into account in his letter.
At the time of writing, Timothy is also in a position of authority, for Paul instructs him to “command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies.” (1 Ti 1:3, 4) The “certain ones” in question are not identified. Male bias—and yes, women are influenced by it as well—might cause us to assume Paul is referring to men, but he does not specify, so let us not jump to conclusions. All we can say for sure is that these individuals, be they male, female, or a mix, “want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.” (1 Ti 1:7)
Timothy is no ordinary elder either. Prophecies were made concerning him. (1 Ti 1:18; 4:14) Nevertheless, he is still young and somewhat sickly, it seems. (1 Ti 4:12; 5:23) Certain ones are apparently trying to exploit these traits to gain the upper hand in the congregation.
Something else which is noteworthy about this letter is the emphasis on issues involving women. There is far more direction to women in this letter than in any of the other writings of Paul. They are counselled about appropriate styles of dress (1 Ti 2:9, 10); about proper conduct (1 Ti 3:11); about gossip and idleness (1 Ti 5:13). Timothy is instructed about the proper way to treat women, both young and old (1 Ti 5:2) and on fair treatment of widows (1 Ti 5:3-16). He is also warned specifically to “reject irreverent false stories, like those told by old women.” (1 Ti 4:7)
Why all this emphasis on women, and why the specific warning to reject false stories told by old women? To help answer that we need to consider the culture of Ephesus at that time. You will recall what happened when Paul first preached in Ephesus. There was a great outcry from the silversmiths who made money from fabricating shrines to Artemis (aka, Diana), the multi-breasted goddess of the Ephesians. (Acts 19:23-34)
A cult had been built up around the worship of Diana that held that Eve was God’s first creation after which he made Adam, and that it was Adam who had been deceived by the serpent, not Eve. The members of this cult blamed men for the woes of the world. It is therefore likely that some of the women in the congregation were being influenced by this thinking. Perhaps some had even converted from this cult to the pure worship of Christianity.With that in mind, let us notice something else distinctive about Paul’s wording. All his counsel to women throughout the letter is expressed in the plural. Then, abruptly he changes to the singular in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman….” This lends weight to the argument that he is referring to a particular woman who is presenting a challenge to Timothy’s divinely ordained authority. (1Ti 1:18; 4:14) This understanding is bolstered when we consider that when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman…to exercise authority over a man…”, he is not using the common Greek word for authority which is exousia. That word was used by the chief priests and elders when they challenged Jesus at Mark 11:28 saying, “By what authority (exousia) do you do these things?” However, the word Paul uses to Timothy is authentien which carries the idea of a usurping of authority.
HELPS Word-studies gives: “properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).
What fits with all this is the picture of a particular woman, an older woman, (1 Ti 4:7) who was leading “certain ones” (1 Ti 1:3, 6) and trying to usurp Timothy’s divinely ordained authority by challenging him in the midst of the congregation with a “different doctrine” and “false stories” (1 Ti 1:3, 4, 7; 4:7).
If this were the case, then it would also explain the otherwise incongruous reference to Adam and Eve. Paul was setting the record straight and adding the weight of his office to re-establish the true story as portrayed in the Scriptures, not the false story from the cult of Diana (Artemis to the Greeks).[ii]
This brings us finally to the seemingly bizarre reference to childbearing as a means of keeping the woman safe.
As you can see from this screen grab, a word is missing from the rendering the NWT gives this verse.
The missing word is the definite article, tēs, which changes the whole meaning of the verse. Let us not be too hard on the NWT translators in this instance, because the vast majority of translations omit the definite article here, save for a few.
“…she will be saved through the birth of the Child…” – International Standard Version
“she [and all women] will be saved through the birth of the child” – GOD’S WORD Translation
“she shall be saved through the childbearing” – Darby Bible Translation
“she shall be saved through the child-bearing” – Young’s Literal Translation
In the context of this passage which references Adam and Eve, the childbearing that Paul is referring to may very well be that referred to at Genesis 3:15. It is the offspring (the bearing of children) via the woman which results in the salvation of all women and men, when that seed finally crushes Satan in the head. Rather than focusing on Eve and the alleged superior role of women, these “certain ones” should be focusing on the seed or offspring of the woman through whom all are saved.
The Role of Women
Jehovah himself tells us how he feels about the female of the species:
Jehovah himself gives the saying;
The women telling the good news are a large army.
(Ps 68:11)
Paul speaks highly of women throughout his letters and recognizes them as supportive companions, hosting congregations in their homes, prophesying in the congregations, speaking in tongues, and caring for the needy. While the roles of men and women differ based on their makeup and God’s purpose, both are made in God’s image and reflect his glory. (Ge 1:27) Both will share in the same reward as kings and priests in the kingdom of the heavens. (Ga 3:28; Re 1:6)
There is more for us to learn on this subject, but as we free ourselves from the false teachings of men, we must also strive to free ourselves from the prejudices and biased thinking of our former belief systems and also of our cultural heritage. As a new creation, let us be made new in the force of God’s spirit. (2 Co 5:17; Eph 4:23)
________________________________________________
[i] See point 5 of this link.
[ii] An Examination of the Isis Cult with Preliminary Exploration into New Testament Studies by Elizabeth A. McCabe p. 102-105; Hidden Voices: Biblical Women and Our Christian Heritage by Heidi Bright Parales p. 110
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Hamilton Grey on 2015-08-02 18:32:04
I really appreciate this article Meleti, i have always struggled with the concept that women are not allowed to contribute to the congregation in a teaching capacity, only allowed to be proactive hall cleaners. I find it abserd a young brother with no real knowledge of God's word is allowed to give a student talk, which is in the capacity of teaching the congregation, then a sister who has served Jehovah faithfully and who has year's of experience is religated to what amounts to demonstration. Common sense dictates this "organisational procedure" is a nonsense at best and classic undue influence at its worst. I look forward studing this article more intently, so i can discreetly convey these thoughts to my dear sisters.
Comment by father jack on 2015-08-03 05:12:02
Wow meleti what a great article I've never understood the meaning of 1 corinthians 14 v36 itnever seemed to make much sense in the context .It makes much more sense now . I also think of Peters quote from joel that your son's and DAUGHTERS will prophesy the fact that phoebe was a minister of the congregation . The truth is that we all should treat each other with dignity and respect and honour . As for in the home I would be an idiot if I tried to silence my wife she's really clever for goodness sake it's a partnership not an autocracy . No wonder half of them in the congregation are depressed .
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-03 08:14:11
Thanks. I found it very enlightening to research.
Comment by father jack on 2015-08-03 09:14:57
This one's for menrov in reply to last comment on the old format , sorry to digress from this theme . Menrov revelation 18 v 4 says get out of her if you do not want to share in her sins and suffer her punishment . So false religion leads us and perhaps even puts us under compulsion to sin individually against god . I think this could be the sin of having a share in spilling the blood of the holy ones or even perhaps the sin of idolatry of worshipping the wild beast and receiving it's mark . I don't think it's about simply belonging to an organisation or religion in name . Oscar schinldler was a member of the nazi party i believe but was not led along with them in their brutal treatment of the Jews . I suppose when our backs are to the wall all of us have a choice whether to follow our conscience or to sin and follow men and it's interesting that 666 is man's number .
Comment by Alien Resident on 2015-08-03 16:16:34
It's a good topic, Jehovah loves a spiritual women as outlined, I could never understand why Deborah isn't a Judge, and Barak is...it's true Barak ironically is mentioned in Heb11:34-36 & Deborah isn't . I like the research especially in Corinthians.thanks for the effort Meleti
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-03 19:39:12
It was a pleasure to research.
Comment by stonedragon on 2015-08-03 17:51:33
Meleti,
Reading this article, was like deja vu.
For about at least 18 months or more, I had done the same research you outlined here and came to the same conclusions. I could hardly contain my amazement and excitement, that although separated by time and space, we have arrived at the same conclusions. Is this the Holy Spirit teaching us, as Jesus promised?
I was just discussing this same topic with some family members, just last week and trying to explain why it is inconceivable that the use of a person by God, comes down to genitalia. Not to be crude, but is God only concerned using a person if they have a penis or not?
I personally think a great dis-service has been perpetuated upon women of the church, by male bullies. I for one have tried to make amends in my own family and encourage my wife to lead in prayer if she so wishes. It makes no sense to believe that a sister will be given a commanding position in heaven, but that whilst on earth, she has to be subservient. I strongly desist, resist and resent any male biased feeling of male superiority over women. I know, I know, some would correct me and say that there is neither male or female in heaven, but I think you get my gist?
Another point to note about the the Ephesian congregation, is that these former worshippers of Artemis may have been strongly influenced by Gnostic thinking. The Gnostics were a clear and present threat to Christianity, by teaching the REVERSE of everything detailed in Genesis. For example, they taught
that Eve was NOT deceived,
that she brought wisdom to Adam,
that Satan was the bringer of light,
the real God was Sophia and that Jehovah was the demiurge, a counterfeit God.
The reference to child bearing was made by Paul, because the Gnostics viewed flesh as evil. Therefore bringing a child, ie more flesh into the world, was in their view, to bring evil into the world. Paul countered such rubbish by stating the opposite of the Gnostic teachings; ie that Eve was deceived and that child bearing did not mean that evil was brought into the world ergo a woman would still be 'saved' in Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul reference to a woman not speaking, was taken to the extreme in the Catholic churches. Because of poor exegesis on their part, it was reasoned that the only reasonable way to obey the command, yet hear the voices of 'women' was to castrate young boys. Thus within the Church, arose a group called the Castrati. These men served in the place of women in the choirs thus solving the problem of not permitting a woman to speak (or be heard) or so they reasoned.
Again Meleti - I must commend you on a well written and researched article. It proves further to me, despite our differences, our brother and Lord is leading us to the same destination. We must remember that we may be on different parts of the SAME road. Sometimes you will be further along than some brothers and other times the situation might be reversed - where you have the catching up to do!! So even if something sounds apostate, or downright absurd, it may be that we simply haven't gone down the road far enough to see the vista that somebody else sees. For example, if somebody had come to you with the very same reasoning you presented as you were just waking up, I wonder what your reaction would have been?
Finally, as I offered when you originally suggested putting forward this sight, if there is anything I can do to help please let me know. Whether it is financial or otherwise. May our God and brother Jesus bless you with the approval of our Father, Jehovah.
WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-03 19:41:33
Thanks so much, StoneDragon. (Some day you'll have to tell me the origin of that particular moniker.) For now the Donations tab will give us some much needed funds to help take this to the next level. Of course, there is no obligation.
Reply by stonedragon on 2015-08-04 01:59:56
Ah.. I didn't see the donate button. My bad.
Reply by on 2015-08-05 13:41:58
You mentioned, "even if something sounds apostate, or downright absurd, it may be that we simply haven’t gone down the road far enough to see the vista that somebody else sees". We must be very careful of using the word "apostate" if it is used at all. One thing is clear: WT uses the term "apostate" as a smear and as propaganda, to bludgeon all those whose disagree with them. The only real test of being apostate is if a person is going against the clear teachings of the Bible. When the Bible's position is not clear, as is often the case, a mere difference of opinion does not constitute apostasy. In contrast, WT will impose a loyalty test; unless you agree with every teaching of the GB and agree to obey them, in their eyes you are an apostate. To avoid the apostate label from WT, you must agree to follow the teachings of men (the men comprising the GB) as doctrine.
Comment by arover2014 on 2015-08-03 23:51:59
It's important when reading an article like this, that Meleti is not speaking as an ecclesiastical authority. We are to be like the Beroeans and investigate all things.
Let's remember that Meletis article deals with congregational authority: the bridegroom is Christ, and both male and female members make up his bride. At home family the male is still very much the head, although we have learned as males to imitate Christ in all love and consideration and respect for our wives.
The question in the congregation is truly, if the Scriptures stay that there are female prophetesses, judges, etc .. then there is a certain equality today which has been denied to our sisters. I believe that's true, but I would caution prudence in this matter.
Specifically the woman should not usurp the role given by God to her husband, and in his presence, I believe, should show proper respect for her husband by wearing a head covering in the case she carries out certain roles. To what extent this affects the congregation is a mystery to me, but perhaps it's good to err on the side of caution. Imagine a sister engages in a prayer in the congregation, in the presence of her husband. Should she cover her head? I personally think so. But Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't allow her to pray at all. So that would be a massive improvement.
However at home, between the two, I do think the husband should take the lead in worship, and that includes prayer. Yet I also let my children pray for us at times. So I don't think it has to be a rule the wife cannot occasionally pray in the presence of her husband. Between two siblings, the sister might pray without head covering in the presence of her brother because she is not under her brother's authority, etc.
The main matter to be respected is the headship arrangement. The only human headship is between wife and husband, and of course parent/child. Aside from Christ, The individual sister has no headship to recognize in any male which is not her husband or father.Reply by stonedragon on 2015-08-04 01:41:33
Hi Brother Alex,
I would have to disagree with some of what you have written. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into detail, but many of the scriptures used as a basis for stipulating that a man is the head of his wife, is again based on poor/biased mistranslation and cultural presuppositions (at least in my opinion - which granted could be totally wrong and you could be right).
Furthermore we have a subconscious tendency to cherry pick what our brain/cultural bias wants to pick up. For example, Paul states that it is a glory for a woman to have long hair. However do all the sisters wear their hair long? If not why not? Surely the opposite must be true, that it is not glorious for a sister to have short hair? So why do some sisters wear there hair short? So why did Paul make this statement? It was all about what was happening within Corinth and the Church at the time. The same goes for head coverings. Was this an eternal/universal rule, or was Paul making a particular point, for circumstances at that time? In my view, without understanding what was really going on in the Corinthian Church, to really think that a piece of cloth on a sisters head makes a difference to God and Jesus, paints them as petty and gives rise to tradition for no good reason. The example of the Castrati I made reference to in my earlier post, should be a reminder that we have to be very, very careful when reading Paul's letters, before arriving at any conclusion.
I am always reminded that the New Testament, with the advent of Jesus was the reset button for mankind, starting with the Church - to go back to Gods original declared purpose. When I read Genesis, there is nothing there, that suggests Adam was in some way, head of Eve, unless I'm missing something? Was Eve somehow to be subservient to Adam? Sure she would have to learn from him, but that is something entirely different and it would of only been a matter of time until she got up to speed. God's blessing and commandment was given to both of them, without any suggestion that Adam was somehow to be her authoritative head. As Jesus said, when two are yoked together, let no man pull apart. When two animals are yoked together, one is not put in front of the other and there is no way to tell which is stronger or the one taking the 'lead'. They are both in step with one another. Why should anything be different in marriage or the congregation?
I have visited a Baptist church twice, on the invite of somebody I met. It was a real revelation. The sisters there had a full part in the service. And when I say full, I mean full. They were allowed to lead in song worship, prayers and even the sermon - without a head covering!!! It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen and I was so happy for them. To see the full potential of our sisters unleashed was fantastic. Why stifle/muzzle half of the Church?
Can you imagine what it would be like if Sisters were allowed to become elders? How they could comfort and really take of that part of the flock, that quite frankly brothers don't really understand? For example, I am really puzzled how a middle aged man or a young elder can really relate to say a sister going through the menopause? Do you get my drift? There are some matters, where sisters would be far more qualified to help and teach than a brother ever could, regardless of his experience.
Any case, brother I respect your views and each must decide for themselves through their own research on how they feel that women should participate within the Body of Christ and at home.Reply by Skye on 2015-08-04 04:31:46
Yes, I think some of us can imagine what it would be like if sisters were allowed to become elders - perhaps not altogether a very good idea. A sister does not have to be an elder in order to comfort others. I think perhaps the problem is that in the JW organisation, people are always going to the elders with their problems when sometimes it may be more appropriate just to confide in a friend. The elders in the org have been given far too much power and as we know they are not always the best people to confide in.
Reply by Hamilton Grey on 2015-08-04 05:15:53
Sisters have more to offer than just being subservient listeners during meetings and many of us would benefit from them making a full contribution. It's true what you say Skye we need not be elders to help people spiritually, only godly.
"Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ. If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important." - Galatians 6:1-3 NLT
Comment by skye on 2015-08-04 07:49:15
1 Timothy 3 says that overseers should be husbands of one wife .... Therefore sisters do not have leadership positions in Church groups. However, as we all know there are times when husbands do well to listen to their wives, sons to their mothers and young men to older sisters.
Reply by on 2015-08-05 16:41:05
It seems to me that this command should be taken literally, that overseers should be husbands of one wife. All too often the verse is framed in such a way as to simply imply a prohibition against polygamy, but why is it not taken at face value? Since an overseer is dealing with a congregation, including the mature issues facing married couples, should not an overseer actually BE married - both to have insight in these matters, and also to act as a safeguard so that the overseer, having his own wife, would not be tempted into wrongdoing involving other women in the congregation? That seems like a reasonable arrangement, yet the WT does not prevent single men from being overseers. What do you all think about this? Comments invited.
Comment by father jack on 2015-08-04 13:09:48
Acts 18 v 26 and this man (apollo s ) started to speak boldly in the synagogue when priscilla and aquila heard him they took him into thier company and expounded the way of god more correctly to him . The passage seems to suggest that both husband and wife had a role in teaching apollos . I on the one hand do think that the scriptures do indicate that the role of overseer should be filled by a husband of one wife but ministerial servants im not so sure for what is the meaning of 1 timothy 3 v 11 it can only mean 2 things i believe it is either a standard set out for a woman to qualify as a minister or or the word has to be aplied to the wives of ministerial servant barring him from serving him if she does not measure up .
Comment by stonedragon on 2015-08-04 14:36:38
Skye,
I am afraid your argument is non sequitur.
Is there any scripture that forbids women from having a role of leadership?
What makes you think that God cannot and would not use a woman/women to lead where he wills?
Please tell me, what is it that makes men, any man more eminently qualified to lead, regardless of the situation? Remember the female of the species equally reflects part of God.
Gen 5:1 This is the historical record of Adam's generations. When God created mankind, he made them in his own likeness.
Gen 5:2 Creating them male and female, he blessed them and called them humans when he created them (ISV)
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam: In the day that God created man. He made him in the likeness of God.
Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. (LITV)
So you see from God's point of view, Man is not just the male of the species, but the female as well. The woman is equally a reflection of God as the man is. Therefore why would he not use both in the outworking of his purpose?
Please take a look at 1 Tim 3 vs 11. I've got do some more research here, but my prima facie research of this verse suggests that this counsel was for women who would also take leadership. This is something for me to research, and perhaps you might want to?Reply by skye on 2015-08-04 16:26:19
stonedragon
With regard to 1 Timothy 3, what is being referred to here are elders, that is those that have leadership roles within church groups. According to this section of scripture such leadership is confined to men/brothers.
Of course, God can and does use women as we know - they are a large army preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Through their diligent study and participation in church groups and bible study they are indeed an asset. They also take care of the needs of their families and others.
In Acts 2:14-18 we see that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not limited to men.
Gal 3:28,29 Spiritual Israel includes also male and female - there is no spiritual status before God.
With regard to 1 Timothy 3:11. Think about the opposite of those qualities mentioned there of an elder's wife and how that would affect his role of leadership within the church group and also how that would affect the members of the church group.
Comment by father jack on 2015-08-04 17:43:59
Just had a look at the greek strongs g 1249 diakanos is used both at 1 timothy 3 v 11 and at romans 16 v1 when referring to phoebe as a minister of the congregation . It has to be remembered though that diakanos was a position of servitude to carry out the will of others . Hence a ministerial servant in NWT . With that in mind i just dont get why phoebe could not be a deaconess . Its obviously derived from the greek word afore mentioned and romans 16 v1 describes her as such .
Comment by stonedragon on 2015-08-04 18:05:13
Skype,
Your entire reasoning rests upon the fact that because Paul addressed men in this passage, therefore it must exclude women from any kind of leadership role. So my original statement that your argument is non sequitur stands. You are simply making an inference, that is simply not stated in the Gospel or any other part of the Bible. Indeed the opposite is true, with regard to Phoebe , Priscilla and Junia to name a few who were named as deacons and apostles (although many translations try to obscure these facts).
You have also failed to answer my question - what qualifies a man over a woman that teaching in the context we are referring to as something only a male can do?
You say there is no spiritual status before God - do you really believe that? So what status is there that discounts a woman from leadership?
You say the gifts of the Holy Spirit is not limited to men - except of course according to your opinion that of leadership. What can you show me that proves this?
Indeed, if you look at Timothy, there is every reason to believe that men in the congregation were the least suited for the task of leadership.
1Ti 2:8 Therefore I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer, lifting up loyal hands, apart from wrath and debates.
What do you think this scripture tell us about men in the congregation? Yep, they were squaring up to each other and having fights. These are hardly intrinsic qualities of leadership in Christ are they? So if it is not the ability to brawl when disagreements arise, what is it, that men intrinsically have over women?
Also I would like to return to the scripture I quoted in Genesis. Jesus re-instated the proper relationship but you failed to make any comment about this and what it means for Christians. In my view we have one or two models. The glorious role of Man (and I mean male and female, as per the description given in Genesis) working together or alternatively man dominating over not just the animal kingdom, but indeed the other half of himself made in God's image. What is your opinion?
Personally, I choose the former view. Men and Women equal in ALL respects and not 'just as a large army' which in my opinion has very condescending overtones of further servitude. The women do all the heavy lifting but leave everything to the men to run, because women are just so 'feeble minded' and 'emotional' to be of any value to God. I don't think so.
Lastly, remember the same arguments were made about people of colour not so long ago. Indeed I have one of the Societies earlier publications (circa 1920's) that described the black brothers in very patronising terms; likeable, cheerful and obedient but not fit for any leadership. We have to recognize bias and prejudice in ourselves. In doing so, we will move away from conforming to this World and instead conform to the will of the Christ (Romans 12:2).Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-08-04 21:50:13
Hi Stonedragon,
I admire your conviction and have found many of the points you’ve raised very interesting. However, in spite of your challenge, I don’t think Skye is guilty of a non sequitur. For instance, consider the following argument:
P1. Overseers must be a husband of numerically one wife (MIAS GUNAIKOS) (1 Tim 3:2).
P2. There is an explicit contradistinction between a husband (ANDRA) and wife in relation to an overseer (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).
P3. Women (GUNAIKAS pl.) are contrasted with other members who serve the church. (cf. 1 Tim. 3:11).
P4. Jesus re-emphasized the unique bi-personal marital bond between a husband and wife. (cf. Mt. 19:5f).
P5. Unrepentant homosexual activity denies one from entry into God’s Kingdom. (1 Cor. 6:9).
P6. An overseer can actually or potentially have numerically one partner only (by 1 & 4).
P7. An overseer cannot actually or potentially be a wife (by 1, 2, 3 & 5).
C1. Therefore, an overseer must be a man (by 6 & 7).
As far as I can tell, the logic stands.
When we reason on the Scriptures, we should try to allow those Scriptures that are unambiguous – both textually and contextually – to inform those that aren’t. I submit to you that we have just such a case here concerning the evidence for accepting women as overseers into the Church. This is in no way an attempt to polemicize gender discrimination, curtail equal rights, or enforce patriarchal hegemony. Rather, we should as a matter of course give precedence to the most obvious reading of a text, regardless of its cultural fit or any affront it may cause to the sensibilities of others. Indeed, the argument above plausibly demonstrates that the evidence requiring overseers to be men is more obviously true than not.
I have personally known a number of women whose knowledge, experience, and demeanour would have made them an excellent candidate for overseer. Alas, God has set the roles within the Church and we part with them at our own peril.
Comment by on 2015-08-05 15:49:52
Hi Vox Ratio,
Firstly, with the danger of sounding repetitive, neither you or Skype have quoted a single scripture that stipulates an injunction against a woman serving as an overseer. Just inferences, inferences.
What does Paul also say about the office of deacon? Well they pretty much must meet the same qualification of men. So there we have it. Only men are mentioned as holding the office of either deacon or as an overseer.
Yet we know from other letters that women were mentioned as teachers, apostles, prophets and deacons (but despite efforts in times past to obscure these scriptures, the truth is now coming out).
So what are we to make of this conundrum? You are right, in Timothy Paul makes no mention of ANY office being held by a woman. Therefore one could infer as you have done, that women cannot hold these offices. But surprise, surprise Paul mentions these women in exactly these same roles elsewhere. So what can we conclude about the fact that Paul mentions women occupying these offices elsewhere? Simply, he was not making a universal rule and there was something SPECIFIC in the Ephesian congregation at THAT time, that prompted him only to mention men.
As Meleti demonstrated earlier (which my own personal study concurs with) Paul said the women should be silent, which on the face of things appears to be a direct command. Therefore many churches prevent women speaking in the Church under any circumstances. But commands like this of Paul puts you in a dilemma. Here's why, by the way of two examples.
Example one: You are prepared to infer from the scriptures that women are not to hold office, but at the same time you do not obey the clear command that women should be silent and allow them to speak. You make a rule about that which is not explicitly stated and disobey the rule that is explicitly written.
Example two: Also, why don't sisters cover their head when on the platform? Regardless of whether they are sitting down, standing up in front of a lectern or not, they are teaching, otherwise what would be the point of having them up there? I for one have learnt a lot from the sisters demonstrations over the years. Indeed, I have been taught well by them. But where is the head covering and why are they even teaching? Again are they not meant to be silent, much less teaching?
So you see, in my opinion one simply cannot draw up a rule when none is made by Paul about women leading and then blatantly ignore the DIRECT rules he does give about being silent and wearing a head covering!! Is that not hypocrisy/double standards on the part of JW’s? But of course I am not suggesting that either yourself or Skype are hypocrites or hold double standards, but rather your reasoning is inconsistent.
Here is my take on the scriptures in Timothy. I posit that it was specific problems in the congregation that prompted Paul to direct his comments to the men. If you look at the earlier chapters his comments regarding the behaviour of men one can see there was a clear problem. Those taking the lead (the me) were brawlers, had more than one wife, were prone to cursing/swearing etc. Hardly poster boys for the Christian church. Ergo they were the ones Paul’s comments were directed to. But, if I were to adopt your approach of inferring a rule when there is none, I could argue that since Paul does not mention brothers who are not taking the lead, it would be okay for these ones to brawl, have more than one wife etc!!
So in summary, can you or Skype answer these questions:
1. Where in the NT is there a scriptural injunction prohibiting women from taking the lead? Where has God defined these
roles, that you feel would be our undoing if we depart from them?
2. Why don’t we follow ALL of Paul's commands to the letter regarding women in the following areas:
a. Being silent?
b. Wearing head covering?
c. Forbidding sisters to cut their hair, as this is their God given glory?
3. Why can't brothers NOT TAKING THE LEAD be brawlers, polygamous, curse and swear, since Paul only mentions
brothers taking leadership role? Surely this inference would be consistent with the inference you make to exclude
women from taking leadership roles?Reply by skye on 2015-08-05 17:42:35
Stonedragon,
And what if I disagree with you, will I receive another comment like the last one from you?
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-08-05 20:41:08
Hi Stonedragon,
I’m perplexed that you think I didn’t quote a single Scripture to support my primary contention. That may be “technically” correct, but in my defence, I did cite four Scriptures and four linguistic references when outlining my argument. However, I’m even more perplexed that you would speak as you have in defence of your own position and then, quite literally, neither quote nor cite a single Scripture to support your conclusion. Now, I’ve never been one for escalating pedantry, but if you’re willing to call out others over technicalities then you should make doubly sure that you’re not engaging in the very thing you’re calling into question.
Be that as it may, what I presented was an inductive argument based upon the context and cotext of the cited verses. I outlined my position as a series of premises and reasoned to a conclusion stating where and why the conclusion follows. All I have attempted to do is show that the circumstantial and linguistic evidence of the texts in question support the view that overseers should be “male”, and that this position is more plausibly true than not. That is the essence of an inductive argument.
For these reasons, if you really do think that my argument is invalid or unsound then you also need to specify which premises are false and why. Alternatively, if you think my argument is nonsequitous, then you need to show how my premises can be true and yet my conclusion be false.
If you’re willing to engage the argument in that capacity, then this discussion should probably be moved to the DTT forum. Otherwise, I’m quite willing to take your lead, and that of Skye, and acquiesce until another time.
Reply by SinkingPeter on 2015-08-06 12:52:33
I think one but of context we might be missing in the "husband of one wife" stipulation is that I don't believe it was even conceptually possible for a woman to have more than one husband in their culture. It might have been something that didn't even need saying, whereas the men were quite commonly found to have more than one wife. Addressing the men on this particular point would have been prudent. Reading into it that because he didn't mention the converse, which was likely entirely outside his thoughts, that women were then being excluded from leadership might be a bit of eisigesis.
This is a lot of new info for me and I've never read the scriptures the way presented in the article, but it's a very comelling case being made and it feels far more in harmony with the overall message of the Gospel and scriptures like Galatians 3:28.Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-08-06 21:30:41
Hi SinkingPeter,
You raise an interesting objection, and I do concur with you that Paul would not have had polyandry in mind simply because it was not a prevalent issue at the time. Having said that, however, he still contrasts the role of women in the Church with other roles (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2ff, 1 Tim. 3:11), and the closest antecedent service-role to Paul’s discussion of women are Church deacons (DIAKONOI pl.) not overseers (EPISKOPOI pl.) (cf. 1Tim. 3:8,11) . With regard to the passage’s immediate context, Paul also compares the family headship arrangement to the responsibility that an overseer has with regard to the Church. If we are accepting of God’s assigned roles within the headship arrangement, then there should be a measure of weight afforded to how Paul reasons analogously here too (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5)
Regarding your concern, exegesis begins with the text and flows outward (EX), whereas eisegesis begins without the text and flows inward (EIS). To be sure, the hermeneutic I have found most useful for measuring the plausibility of an interpretation is by beginning with the text itself, and then informing it through an examination of its cotext and context. It’s a start, but as you and others here have highlighted, there might be more to the story.
By the way, I hope you’ve been coming up for air ;)
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-05 17:50:27
Let's everybody play nice. :)
Reply by on 2015-08-05 19:05:21
It is more important to illuminate the truth of God's word than to try to shine a light on our own wisdom, whatever that might be worth. We can *never* lose sight of the fact that we could be wrong. That unchangeable fact should temper any statements made here with humility. God and Christ are not impressed with how smart we are, or how "right" we are. Even Jesus, who was perfect and thus perfectly "right", and was unquestionably wise, was not ultimately tested on his rightness or wisdom, but on his courage to be loyal to God in the face of death. Anyone strenuously debating words and engaging in heated arguments ought to consider their steps closely. Would you, the one so eager to press your own points and have others see you as "right" and as "smart", are you equally ardent in your devotion to God and Christ? If so, you truly believe you are, then ask yourself, do They want you to engage in arguments? Or to teach and search for the truth in mildness and humility? It doesn't matter what we want. What do They want?
Comment by stonedragon on 2015-08-05 18:03:52
Hi Skye,
If I have offended you in some way, please accept my apology.
I can sometimes get caught up with my own thoughts and not realise that I may be coming across a little less than charitable.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. Either way it doesn't bother me, since I know my view counts as very little in the grand scheme of things. We'll just have to wait and see what our big brother reveals in the future.
I can say I have really enjoyed the exchanges, because although you may disagree with me, it has made things clearer in my own mind.
Until our next exchange brother, peace be with you.Reply by Skye on 2015-08-05 18:17:27
Thank you brother.
Comment by Skye on 2015-08-07 04:45:13
The Bible is a book from God who meant it to be understood by ordinary folk.
Most religions teach isolated verses and passages to corroborate their teachings. Therefore the best way to go is to read whole books of the Bible together. The best place to start is the gospels, starting with Matthew; leave the book of John till last because as we know that is the book which does have some difficult scriptures, but once we read Matthew, Mark and Luke, then we will be able to understand John. Remember, start with Matthew!
Comment by Deborah on 2015-08-07 14:15:49
Jesus loved all his disciples and gave out assignments of responsibility and privilege as his Father's spirit directed.
Women freely spoke to, and questioned, Jesus publicly and in private.
The Samaritan woman at the well was privileged to be told directly by Jesus that he was the Messiah. This was a one on one teaching which included the teaching on living water, on the importance of worshiping the Father in spirit and truth, and his place as prophet. With that she put down her water jar and quickly ran to inform her countrymen of the things she had heard.
It is to Martha, a woman who along with her sister Mary Jesus had openly and purposely allowed the deep suffering of death to come upon them, that Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life, that the dead will live and the living will not die.
Mary Magdalene was personally instructed by Jesus himself to declare the Good News of the Messiah's resurrection to his male disciples as well as lovingly saying she need not cling to him as if he is about to immediately leave because his ascension to his Father had not yet occurred. In other words, she would see him again.
Each of these are intimate conversations with women God had called to him, women not only loved but also women who, just as their male counterparts, both preached and taught the Good News to others including Christ's male disciples.
Jesus put all his disciples to good use. Giving each the privilege or responsibility to which they were most suited. If the weightiness of Christ's conversations could be measured it would be difficult to put the revelations given to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, one above the other.
Headship is second to Christ's call. If God's spirit calls a woman to preach and teach then this she must do. If her husband requires that she wear a head covering then for his sake she should for this is a small thing. But if he should not require it she is free to do as her conscience dictates. So too in the congregation, if required so be it, if not, then let it be as well. In this way no stumbling will occur over a relatively unimportant tradition.
Jesus made plain that a disciple could choose singleness, he did not require his ministers to be husbands. It would appear then that "husband of one wife" relates to polygamy. It is also true that in the early church male disciples took the lead. This is unquestionable. We cannot read the Greek Scriptures and think otherwise.
All Christian men should, though, recognize that a Godly woman must in all things related to God and Christ obey God as ruler rather than men. This includes her priest, overseer, pastor and husband.
DeborahReply by on 2015-08-07 21:50:51
As you noted, Acts 5:29, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men" ought to answer all questions, but for the WT, it does not. If an elder cited Acts 5:29 as a reason to not obey a directive from Bethel or the Governing Body, the elder would be removed from his position or even disfellowshipped.
One would imagine that if the Bible uses the word "must", it is pretty important to do. Yet for some reason, "must" to some people means, "we'll think about it and get back to you". Like the model prayer, where Jesus says "You must pray, then, this way, Our Father in the heavens ...", some people think that "must" means, "maybe, and only for certain privileged people", and that He is only Father to a select few (which we are not among, of course).
No wonder religion is so complicated: There's so many people giving so many contradictory definitions for the word "must". Only one definition is really needed, though.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-08-08 09:05:24
I can attest to the Acts 5:29 part.
Reply by Deborah on 2015-08-08 11:54:08
Anonymous,
"One would imagine that if the Bible uses the word “must”, it is pretty important to do. Yet for some reason, “must” to some people means, “we’ll think about it and get back to you”. Like the model prayer, where Jesus says “You must pray, then, this way, Our Father in the heavens …”, some people think that “must” means, “maybe, and only for certain privileged people”, and that He is only Father to a select few (which we are not among, of course)."
In many respects Christian religions have been trees of the knowledge of good and bad. They teach the good found in the Bible while at same time overlaying it with the commands and traditions of men.
We have tasted their bitter fruit and suffered for it. Now we know ONLY Jesus is the way and the truth and the life that leads to his Father, who sent him.
DeborahReply by Skye on 2015-08-09 08:38:12
Our salvation depends on our obedience to Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 5:9 "and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him."
Comment by Diane Fairfield on 2016-01-01 00:31:08
Consider this. The order of creation. The inanimate objects, the plants, the animals, then Adam and finally Eve.
It was going upward wasn't it ? Animals needed caretakers, protectors.
Adam needed a helper, someone to show him the way.
A superior being, the last of the creation, Eve.
Creation started from the one celled animals and reptiles and sea creatures to increasingly
complex forms of life, culminating in the pinnacle of creation, Eve.
Eve's "subjection" to Adam did not occur naturally, it was a "curse" as stated by God "From now on..." (after she sinned) "your husband will dominate you". That was the curse on Eve.
Indicating Adam had not been the dominant member of the pair before this curse.
Other wise God would not have said; " From now on...".
All creation was "subjected to futility" and the natural order was reversed.
Eve's subjection and Adam's dominance was a "curse".
But with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, "the curse was nailed to the cross" as the scripture states.
Meaning that there is no longer a curse on women and they are free, and as
spiritually free because through Christ, their bondage was broken and they reign with Christ.
The scriptures say "your daughters will prophesy " . Jesus did not recognize conventions towards
women and he stated, that in the resurrection; "they will be neither male not female, but as the angels in heaven".
The restrictions and rules of subjection practiced by the WT Society are a part of the error of doctrine that separates people from Christ and subjects people into false "classes" and women into objects with no spiritual authority.
Comment by Easa on 2017-05-30 05:19:18
I am brother Basavaraj a born JW and fan of Brother Robert King since 2010 and a friend of my dear brother Baruq
Greetings to you in the name of Jehovah through Jesus. I live in India Karnataka South India. By the by who are you where do you stay and are you a JW brother or sister? Br Robert King saved me from falling into Satan's world otherwise by this time I would have been an atheist as I saw in 2010 that something was not going well with the WTS though I am a born JW. After going through Robert’s site my faith on Jehovah and Jesus once again strengthened from 2010-2012. I was going to meetings for the sake of my wife because she is a beautiful woman. She was a staunch JW till 2014. I was very much afraid to show Robert’s website and to tell her that 1914 was wrong, as her father and her elder fleshly brothers are all elders and coordinators of my congregation but somehow I made it and she stopped teaching about 1914 since 2014. And as I visited Baruq’s site, I came across your article. I am making your article as thought for this week. It will be discussed at length in our house as my family study with my wife. It seems you brought correct points, because the Bible says:- Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,.........in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. I support you!! Please see that even the female is also is in the image of God, so there is no point in telling that woman should not be a prophet as WTS is male biased. If that is so then how Jehovah did allowed Deborah to be his prophetess? Good nice point you brought on Deborah Judges 4:4, 5. Well keep it up.
easajw@gmail.comReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-05-30 09:25:01
Hi Easa,
Welcome. Do try our other sites: Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer and Beroean Pickets Bible Study Forum.
I'm based in North America. I'll leave it at that for now as I still have many friends in the JW community I wish to talk with without impediment, though that is getting harder all the time as gossip continues to circulate.
Meleti