Understanding the Role of Women in God's Family

[box] Author's Note: In writing this article, I am seeking input from our community. It is my hope that others will share their thoughts and research on this important topic, and that in particular, the women on this site will feel free to share their viewpoint with candor. This article is written in the hope and with the desire that we will continue to expand within the freedom of the Christ granted us through the holy spirit and by following his commands.[/box]

“…your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” - Gen. 3:16 NWT

When Jehovah (or Yahweh or Yehowah—your preference) created the first humans, he made them in his image.

“And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 NWT)

To avoid the thought that this is only referring to the male of the species, God inspired Moses to add the clarification: “male and female he created them”. Therefore, when it speaks of God creating man in His own image, it is referring to Man, as in both sexes. Thus, both the male and female are God’s children. However, when they sinned, they lost that relationship. They became disinherited. They lost the inheritance of life eternal. As a consequence, we all now die. (Romans 5:12)

Nevertheless, Jehovah, as the supreme loving Father, immediately implemented a solution to that problem; a way of restoring all his human children back into His family. But that is a subject for another time. For now, we need to understand that the relationship between God and humankind can best be understood when we consider it as a family arrangement, not a governmental one. Jehovah’s concern isn’t vindicating his sovereignty—a phrase not found in Scripture—but saving his children.

If we keep the father/child relationship in mind, it will help us to resolve many problematic Bible passages.

The reason I have described all of the above is to lay the foundation for our current topic which is understanding the role of women within the congregation. Our theme text of Genesis 3:16 is not a curse from God but merely a statement of fact. Sin throws off the balance between natural human qualities. Men become more dominant than intended; women more needy. This imbalance isn’t good for either sex.

The abuse of the female by the male is well documented and evident in any study of history. We don’t even need to study history to prove this. The evidence surrounds us and pervades every human culture.

Nevertheless, this is no excuse for a Christian to behave in this manner. The spirit of God enables us to don the new personality; to become something better. (Ephesians 4:23, 24)

While we were born in sin, orphaned from God, we have been offered the opportunity to return to a state of grace as his adopted children. (John 1:12) We may marry and have families of our own, but our relationship with God makes us all his children. Thus, your wife is also your sister; your husband is your brother; for we are all children of God and as one we cry out endearingly, “Abba! Father!”

Therefore, we would never want to behave in such a way as to hinder the relationship our brother or sister has with Father.

In the Garden of Eden, Jehovah spoke directly to Eve. He did not speak to Adam and tell him to relay the information to his wife. That makes sense since a father will speak to each of his children directly. Again, we see how understanding everything through the lens of a family helps us to understand Scripture better.

What we are trying to establish here is the proper balance between the roles of both the male and the female in all aspects of life. The roles are different. Yet each one is necessary for the benefit of the other. God made the man first yet acknowledged that it was not good for the man to remain alone. This indicates clearly that the male/female relationship was part of God’s design.

According to Young’s Literal Translation:

“And Jehovah God saith, ‘Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’” (Genesis 2:18)

I know many criticize the New World translation, and with some justification, but in this instance I very much like its rendering:

“And Jehovah God went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”” (Genesis 2:18)

Both Young’s Literal Translation’s “counterpart” and the New World Translation’s “complement” convey the idea behind the Hebrew text. Turning to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, we have:

Complement
1 a: something that fills up, completes, or makes better or perfect
1 c: one of two mutually completing pairs: COUNTERPART

Neither sex is complete on their own. Each completes the other and brings the whole to perfection.

Slowly, progressively, at a pace he knows is best, our Father has been preparing us to return to the family. In so doing, with regard to our relationship with Him and with each other, He reveals much about the way things are supposed to be, as opposed to the way they are. Yet, speaking for the male of the species, our tendency is to push back against the leading of the spirit, much as Paul was “kicking against the goads.” (Acts 26:14 NWT)

This has clearly been the case with my former religion.

The Demotion of Deborah

The Insight book produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses 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)

“Evidently settling disputes”? “Serve the people”? Look how hard the writer is working to hide the fact she was a judge of Israel. Now read the Bible account:

“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 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.” (Judges 4:4, 5 NWT)

Instead of recognizing Deborah as the judge she was, the article continues the JW tradition of assigning that role to Barak.

“He commissioned her to summon a strong man of faith, Judge Barak, and direct him to rise up against Sisera.” (p. 13)

Let’s be clear, the Bible never refers to Barak as a judge. The organization simply cannot bear the thought that a woman would be a judge over a man, and so they change the narrative to fit their own beliefs and prejudices.

Now some might conclude that this was a unique circumstance never to be repeated. They might conclude that evidently there were no good men in Israel to do the work of prophesying and judging so Jehovah God made do. Thus, these ones would conclude that women could have no role in judging in the Christian congregation. But notice that not only was she a judge, she was also a prophet.

So, if Deborah was a unique case, we would find no evidence in the Christian congregation that Jehovah continued to inspire women to prophecy and that he enabled them to sit in judgment.

Women prophesying in the congregation

The apostle Peter quotes from the prophet Joel when he says:

““And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams, and even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17, 18)

This turned out to be true. For instance, Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied. (Acts 21:9)

Since our God chose to pour out his spirit on women in the Christian congregations making them into prophets, would he also make them into judges?

Women judging in the congregation

There are no judges in the Christian congregation as there were in the time of Israel. Israel was a nation with its own law code, judiciary, and penal system. The Christian congregation is subject to the laws of whatever country its members live in. That is why we have the counsel from the apostle Paul found at Romans 13:1-7 regarding the superior authorities.

Nevertheless, the congregation is required to deal with sin within its ranks. Most religions put this authority to judge sinners into the hands of appointed men, such as priests, bishops, and cardinals. In the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, judgment is placed in the hands of a committee of male elders meeting in secret.

We recently saw a spectacle play out in Australia when senior members of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including a member of the Governing Body, were advised by Commission officials to allow women to partake in the judicial process where child sexual abuse was at issue. Many in courtroom and public at large were both shocked and dismayed by the Organization’s adamant refusal to bend so much as a hair’s breadth in adopting these recommendations. They claimed that their position was immutable because they were required to follow the direction from the Bible. But is that the case, or were they putting the traditions of men over the commands of God?

The only direction we have from our Lord regarding judicial matters in the congregation is found at Matthew 18:15-17.

"If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17 WEB [World English Bible])

The Lord breaks this down into three stages. The use of “brother” in verse 15 does not require us to consider this as applying exclusively to males. What Jesus is saying is that if your fellow Christian, whether male or female, sins against you, you should discuss it in private with a view of winning back the sinner. Two women could be involved in the first step, for instance. If that fails, she might take along one or two more so that at the mouth of two or three, the sinner could be lead back to righteousness. However, if that fails, the final step is to bring the sinner, male or female, before the entire congregation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses reinterpret this to mean the body of elders. But if we look at the original word that Jesus used, we see that such an interpretation has no foundation in the Greek. The word is ekklésia.

Strong’s Concordance gives us this definition:

Definition: An assembly, a (religious) congregation.
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.

Ekklésia never refers to some ruling counsel within the congregation nor does it exclude half the congregation on the basis of sex. The word means those who have been called out, and both male and female are called out to form the body of Christ, the entire assembly or congregation of Christian believers.

So, what Jesus is calling for in this third and final step is what we might refer to in modern terms as “an intervention”. The entire congregation of consecrated believers, both male and female, are to sit down, listen to the evidence, and then urge the sinner to repent. They would collectively judge their fellow believer and take whatever action they collectively felt was appropriate.

Do you believe that child sexual abusers would have found a safe haven in the Organization if Jehovah’s Witnesses had followed Christ’s counsel to the letter? Additionally, they would have been motivated to follow Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7, and they would have reported the crime to authorities. There would be no child sexual abuse scandal plaguing the Organization as is now the case.

A female apostle?

The word “apostle” comes from the Greek word apostolos, which according to Strong’s Concordance means: “the messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel.”

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 cannot stomach the idea of a female apostle.

Yet, when we look at the meaning of the word objectively, is it not describing what we would today call a missionary? And do we not have female missionaries? So, what is the problem?

We have evidence that women served as prophets in Israel. Besides Deborah, we have Miriam, Huldah, and Anna (Exodus 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14; Judges 4:4, 5; Luke 2:36). We have also seen women acting as prophets in the Christian congregation during the first century. We have seen evidence both in Israelite and in Christian times of women serving in a judicial capacity. And now, there is evidence pointing to a female apostle. Why should any of this cause a problem for the males in the Christian congregation?

An ecclesiastical hierarchy

Perhaps it has to do with the tendency we have of trying to establish authoritative hierarchies within any human organization or arrangement. Perhaps men view these things as an encroachment on the authority of the male. Perhaps they view Paul’s words to the Corinthians and the Ephesians as indicative of a hierarchy arrangement of congregation authority.

Paul wrote:

“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 Corinthians 12:28)

“And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers,” (Ephesians 4:11)

This creates a significant problem for those who would take such a view. The evidence that female prophets existed in the first century congregation is beyond question, as we’ve seen from some of the texts already cited. Yet, in both these verses, Paul puts prophets just after apostles but before teachers and shepherds. Additionally, we've seen evidence just now of a female apostle. If we take these verses to imply some kind of authority hierarchy, then women can rank right at the top with men.

This is a good example of how often we can get into trouble when we approach Scripture with a predetermined understanding or on the basis of an unquestioned premise. In this case, the premise is that some form of authority hierarchy must exist in the Christian congregation for it to work. It certainly exists in pretty much every Christian denomination on earth. But considering the abysmal record of all such groups, perhaps we should be questioning the whole premise of an authority structure.

In my case, I have witnessed firsthand the horrible abuses that have resulted from the authority structure depicted in this graphic:

The Governing Body directs the branch committees, who direct the travelling overseers, who direct the elders, who direct the publishers. At each level, there is injustice and suffering. Why? Because ‘man dominates man to his injury’. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)

I’m not saying that all the elders are evil. In fact, I knew quite a few in my time who strived very hard to be good Christians. Still, if the arrangement is not from God, then good intentions don’t amount to a hill of beans.

Let us abandon all preconception and look at these two passages with an open mind.

Paul speaks to the Ephesians

We’ll begin with the context of Ephesians. I’m going to start with the New World Translation, and then we’ll switch to a different version for reasons which will soon become evident.

“Therefore I, the prisoner in the Lord, appeal to you to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and mildness, with patience, putting up with one another in love, earnestly endeavoring to maintain the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:1-6)

There is no evidence here of any kind of hierarchy of authority within the Christian congregation. There is only one body and one spirit. All those called to form part of that body strive for a oneness of the spirit. Nevertheless, as a body has different members so does the body of Christ. He goes on to say:

“Now undeserved kindness was given to each one of us according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. For it says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.”” (Ephesians 4:7, 8)

It is at this point that we will abandon the New World Translation due to bias. The translator is misleading us by the phrase, “gifts in men”. This leads us to the conclusion that some men are special, having been gifted to us by the Lord.

Looking at the interlinear, we have:

“Gifts to men” is the correct translation, not “gifts in men” as the NWT renders it. In fact, of the 29 different versions available for viewing on BibleHub.com, not a single one renders the verse as does the New World Translation.

But there is more. If we’re looking for a proper understanding of what Paul is saying, we should take note of the fact that the word he uses for “men” is anthrópos and not anēr.

Anthrópos refers to both male and female. It is a generic term. “Human” would be a good rendering since it is gender neutral. If Paul had used anēr, he would have been referring specifically to the man.

Paul is saying that the gifts he is about to list were given to both the male and female members of the body of Christ. None of these gifts is exclusive to one sex over the other. None of these gifts is given exclusively to the male members of the congregation.

Thus the NIV renders it:

“This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people."” (Ephesians 5:8 NIV)

In verse 11, he describes these gifts:

“He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers; ¹² for the perfecting of the saints, to the work of serving, to the building up of the body of Christ; ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; ¹⁴ that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; ¹⁵ but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ; ¹⁶ from whom all the body, being fitted and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in measure of each individual part, makes the body increase to the building up of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:11-16 WEB [World English Bible])

Our body is made up of many members, each with its own function. Yet there is only one head directing all things. In the Christian congregation, there is only one leader, the Christ. All of us are members contributing toward the benefit of all others in love.

Paul speaks to the Corinthians

Nevertheless, some might object to this line of reasoning suggesting that in Paul’s words to the Corinthians there is an explicit hierarchy.

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. ²⁸And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. ²⁹Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ³⁰Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? ³¹Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. And yet I will show you the most excellent way.” (1 Corinthians 12:28-31 NIV)

But even a casual examination of these verses reveals that these gifts from the spirit are not gifts of authority, but gifts for service, for ministering to the Holy Ones. Those who perform miracles are not in charge of those who heal, and those who heal are not in authority over those who help. Rather, the greater gifts are those that offer the greater service.

How beautifully Paul illustrates the way the congregation should be, and what a contrast this is with the way things are in the world, and for that matter, in most religions claiming the Christian Standard.

“On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, ²⁴while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ²⁶If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:22-26 NIV)

The parts of the body that “seem to be weaker are indispensable”. This surely applies to our sisters. Peter counsels:

“You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since you are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7 NWT)

If we fail to show due honor to “the weaker vessel, the feminine one”, then our prayers will be hindered. If we deprive our sisters of a god-given right of worship, we dishonor them and our prayers will be hindered.

When Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:31, says that we should strive for the greater gifts, does he mean that if you have the gift of helping, you should strive for the gift of miracles, or if you have the gift of healing, you should strive for the gift of prophecy? Does understanding what he means having anything to do with our discussion on the role of women in God’s arrangement?

Let’s see.

Again, we should turn to the context but before doing that, let us bear in mind that the chapter and verse divisions contained in all Bible translations did not exist when those words were originally penned. So, let us read the context realizing that a chapter break does not mean there is a break in thought or a change of topic. In fact, in this instance, the thought of verse 31 leads directly into chapter 13 verse 1.

Paul begins by contrasting the gifts he has just referred to with love and shows they are nothing without it.

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV)

Then he gives us a beautifully succinct definition of love—the love of God.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.⁵It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ⁸Love never fails….” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV)

Germane to our discussion is that love “does not dishonor others”. Stripping away a gift from a fellow Christian or restricting his or her service to God is a great dishonor.

Paul closes by showing that all the gifts are temporary and will be done away with, but that something far better awaits us.

“¹²For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV)

The takeaway from all this is apparently that striving for the greater gifts through love doesn’t lead to prominence now. Striving for the greater gifts is all about striving to be of better service to others, to better minister to the needs of the individual as well as to the whole body of Christ.

What love gives us is a greater hold on the greatest gift ever offered a human, male or female: To rule with Christ in the Kingdom of the heavens. What better form of service to the human family could there be?

Three controversial passages

All well and good, you may say, but we don’t want to go too far, do we? After all, hasn’t God explained exactly what the role of women is within the Christian congregation in passages like 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Then there is 1 Corinthians 11:3 which speaks of headship. How do we make sure we are not bending the law of God by giving way to popular culture and custom with regard to the role of women?

These passages certainly seem to be putting women into a very subservient role. They read:

“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 Corinthians 14:33-35 NWT)

“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 Timothy 2:11-15 NWT)

“But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3 NWT)

Before we can get into these verses, we should reiterate a rule we have all come to accept in our Bible research: The Word of God does not contradict itself. Therefore, when there is an apparent contradiction, we need to look deeper.

Clearly there is such an apparent contradiction here, for we have seen clear evidence that women in both the Israelite and Christian eras could act as judges and that they were inspired by Holy Spirit to prophesy. Let us therefore attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction in Paul’s words.

Paul answers a letter

We’ll begin by looking at the context of the first letter to the Corinthians. What prompted Paul to write 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 immorality that was not being dealt with. (1 Co 5:1, 2) There were quarrels, and brothers were 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 half way through the letter: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote…” (1 Corinthians 7:1)

From this point forward, he is answering questions or concerns they have put to him in their 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)

“Follow after love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.….⁵Now I desire to have you all speak with other languages, but rather that you would prophesy. For he is greater who prophesies than he who speaks with other languages, unless he interprets, that the assembly may be built up. (1 Corinthians 14:1, 5 WEB)

Paul says that he desires especially that the Corinthians should prophesy. Women in the first century prophesied. Given that, how could Paul in this very same context—even within this same chapter—say that women are not permitted to speak and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak (ergo, prophecy) in the congregation?

The problem of punctuation

In classical Greek writings from the first century, there are no capitalized letters, no paragraph separations, no 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 punctuation added by the translator.

“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” (1 Corinthians 14:33, 34)

It's rather hard to read, isn’t it? The task facing the Bible translator is formidable. He has to decide where to put the punctuation, but in so doing, he can unwittingly change the meaning of the writer's words. For example:

World English Bible
for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints, let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says.

Young's Literal Translation
for God is not a God of tumult, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints. Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;

As you can see, the World English Bible gives the meaning that it was common practice in all congregations for women to be silent; whereas Young’s Literal Translation tells us that the common ambiance in the congregations was one of peace not of tumult. Two very different meanings based on the placement of a single comma! If you scan the more than two dozen versions available on BibleHub.com, you’ll see that translators are split more or less 50-50 on where to place the comma.

Based on the principle of scriptural harmony, which placement do you favor?

But there is more.

Not only are commas and periods absent in classical Greek, but so are quotation marks. The question arises, what if Paul is quoting something from the Corinthian letter he is answering?

Elsewhere, Paul either directly quotes or clearly references words and thoughts expressed to him in their letter. In these cases, most translators see fit to insert quotation marks. For example:

Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1 NIV)

Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that "We all possess knowledge." But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. (1 Corinthians 8:1 NIV)

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead"? (1 Corinthians 15:14 HCSB)

Denying sexual relations? Denying the resurrection of the dead?! It seems that the Corinthians had some pretty strange ideas, doesn’t it?

Were they also denying a woman her right to speak in the congregation?

Lending support to the idea that in verses 34 and 35 Paul is quoting from the Corinthians' 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. It is the Greek way of saying a sarcastic "So!" or “Really?”— conveying the idea that one doesn't fully agree with what someone else is saying. By way of comparison, consider these two verses written to these same Corinthians which also start with eta:

“Or is it only Barnabas and I who do not have the right to refrain from working for a living?” (1 Corinthians 9:6 NWT)

“Or ‘are we inciting Jehovah to jealousy’? We are not stronger than he is, are we?” (1 Corinthians 10:22 NWT)

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”.

“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?” (1 Corinthians 14:35, 36 NWT)

By contrast, the old King James Version reads:

“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. ³⁶What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” (1 Corinthians 14:35, 36 KJV)

One more thing: The phrase "as the law says" is odd coming from a Gentile congregation. To which law are they referring? The law of Moses did not prohibit women from speaking out in the congregation. Was this a Jewish element in the Corinthian congregation referring to the oral law as practiced at that time. (Jesus frequently demonstrated the repressive nature of the oral law whose main purpose was to empower a few men over the rest. Witnesses use their oral law in much the same way and for the same purpose.) Or were the Gentiles who had this idea, misquoting the law of Moses based on their limited understanding of all things Jewish. We cannot know, but what we do know is that nowhere in the Mosaic Law does such a stipulation exist.

Preserving harmony with Paul’s words elsewhere in this letter—not to mention his other writings—and giving due consideration to Greek grammar and syntax and the fact he is addressing questions they’ve raised previously, we could render this in a phraseological way thus:

"You say, “Women are to be silent in the congregations. That they're not permitted to speak, but should be in subjection as the your law supposedly 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 Law 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, he’d better realize that what I'm writing to you comes from the Lord himself! 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 Timothy 2:11-15 NWT)

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, as Paul himself recommended at 1 Corinthians 7:9, now unprotected because of having no children? And just how is having children a protection for a woman? Further, what’s with the reference to Adam and Eve? What does that have to do with anything here?

Sometimes, the textual context is not enough. At such times we have to look at the historical and cultural context. When Paul wrote this letter, Timothy had been sent to Ephesus to help the congregation there. Paul instructs him to “command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3, 4) The “certain ones” in question are not identified. In reading this, we might normally assume they are men. Nevertheless, all we can safely assume from his words is that the individuals in question ‘wanted to be teachers of law, but did not understand either the things they were saying or the things they insisted on so strongly.’ (1 Ti 1:7)

Timothy is still young and somewhat sickly, it seems. (1 Ti 4:12; 5:23) Certain ones were 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. (1 Ti 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).[i]
This brings us finally to the seemingly bizarre reference to childbearing as a means of keeping the woman safe.

As you can see from the interlinear, 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.

Understanding Paul’s reference to headship

In the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses from which I came, women do not pray nor do they teach. Any teaching part that a woman might have on the platform in the Kingdom Hall – be it a demonstration, an interview, or a student talk – is always done under what Witnesses call the “headship arrangement”, with a man in charge of the part. I think that were a woman to stand up under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and begin to prophesy as they did in the first century, the attendants would fairly tackle the poor dear to the ground for violating this principle and acting above her station. Witnesses get this idea from their interpretation of Paul’s words to the Corinthians:

“But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

They take Paul’s use of the word “head” to mean leader or ruler. To them this is an authority hierarchy. Their position ignores the fact that women did both pray and prophesy in the first century congregation.

“. . .So, when they had entered, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were staying, Peter as well as John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus and Simon the zealous one, and Judas [the son] of James. With one accord all these were persisting in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.” (Acts 1:13, 14 NWT)

“Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head; but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head,. . .” (1 Corinthians 11:4, 5)

In English, when we read “head” we think “boss” or “leader” – the person in charge. However, if that is what is meant here, then we immediately run into a problem. Christ, as the leader of the Christian congregation, tells us that there are to be no other leaders.

“Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.” (Matthew 23:10)

If we accept Paul’s words about headship as indicative of an authority structure, then all Christian men become the leaders of all Christian women which contradicts Jesus words in Matthew 23:10.

According to A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Lindell and R. Scott (Oxford University press, 1940) the Greek word Paul uses is kephalé (head) and it refers to ‘the whole person, or life, extremity, top (of wall or common), or source, but is never used for the leader of a group’.

Based on the context here, it seems that the idea that kephalé (head) means “source”, as in the head of a river, is what Paul has in mind.

Christ is from God. Jehovah is the source. The congregation is from Christ. He is its source.

“…he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” (Colossians 1:17, 18 NASB)

To the Colossians, Paul is using “head” not to refer to Christ’s authority but rather to show that he is the source of the congregation, the beginning of it.

Christians approach God through Jesus. A woman does not pray to God in the name of the man, but in the name of Christ. We all, male or female, have the same direct relationship with God. This is clear from Paul’s words to the Galatians:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29 NASB)

Indeed, Christ has created something new:

“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17 BSB)

Fair enough. Given this, what is Paul trying to tell the Corinthians?

Consider the context. In verse eight he says:

“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; ⁹for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” (1 Corinthians 11:8 NASB)

If he is using kephalé (head) in the sense of source, then he is reminding both the males and females in the congregation that back before there was sin, at the very origin of the human race, a woman was made from a man, taken from the genetic material of his body. It was not good for the man to remain alone. He was incomplete. He needed a counterpart.

A woman is not a man nor should she try to be. Neither is a man a woman, nor should he try to be. Each was created by God for a purpose. Each brings something different to the table. While each can approach God through the Christ, they should do so recognizing the roles which were designated at the start.

With this in mind, let us look at Paul’s counsel following his declaration about headship starting in verse 4:

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.”

Covering his head, or as we’ll see shortly, wearing long hair like a women is a dishonor because while he is addressing God in prayer or representing God in prophesy, he is failing to recognize his divinely appointed role.

^“But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. ⁶For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”

It is clear that women also prayed to God and prophesied under inspiration in the congregation. The only injunction was that they had a token of acknowledgement that they did not do so as a man, but as a woman. The covering was that token. It did not mean they became subservient to the men, but rather that while performing the same task as men, they did so publicly declaring their femininity to the glory of God.

This helps to put into context Paul’s words a few verses farther down.

¹³Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? ¹⁴Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? ¹⁵But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.

It appears that the covering Paul refers to is a woman’s long hair. While performing similar roles, the sexes are to remain distinct. The blurring we witness in modern society has no place within the Christian congregation.

⁷For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸For man is not from woman, but woman from man; ⁹for neither was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. ¹⁰For this cause the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.

His mention of the angels clarifies further his meaning. Jude tells us about “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling…” (Jude 6). Whether male, female, or angel, God has placed each of us in our own position of authority according to his pleasure. Paul is highlighting the importance of bearing that in mind no matter what feature of service is made available to us.

Perhaps mindful of the male tendency to look for any excuse to dominate the female in accordance with the condemnation Jehovah pronounced at the time of the original sin, Paul adds the following balanced view:

¹¹Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. ¹²For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God.

Yes, the woman is out of a man; Eve was out of Adam. But since that time, every man is out of a woman. As men, let us not get haughty in our role. All things come from God and it is to him that we must pay heed.

Should women pray in the congregation?

It may seem odd to even ask this given the very clear evidence from first Corinthians chapter 13 that first century Christian women did indeed pray and prophesy openly in the congregation. Nevertheless, it is very hard for some to overcome the customs and traditions they have been raised with. They might even suggest that were a woman to pray, it might cause stumbling and actually move some to leave the Christian congregation. They would suggest that rather than cause stumbling, it is better to not exercise a woman’s right to pray in the congregation.

Given the counsel at first Corinthians 8:7-13, this may seem to be a scriptural position. There we find Paul stating that if eating meat would cause his brother to stumble – i. e. return to false pagan worship – that he would never eat meat at all.

But is that a proper analogy? Whether or not I eat meat in no way affects my worship to God. But what about whether or not I drink wine?

Let us assume that at the Lord’s evening meal, a sister were to come in who suffered horrible trauma as a child at the hands of an abusive alcoholic parent. She considers any consumption of alcohol to be a sin. Would it then be proper to refuse to drink the wine that symbolizes the life-saving blood of our Lord so as not to “stumble” her?

If someone’s personal prejudice inhibits my worship of God, then it also inhibits their worship of God. In such a case, acquiescing would be actually a cause for stumbling. Remember that stumbling doesn’t refer to causing offence, but rather to causing someone to stray back into false worship.

Conclusion

We are told by God that love never dishonors another. (1 Corinthians 13:5) We are told that if we don’t honor the weaker vessel, the feminine one, our prayers will be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7) Denying a divinely granted right of worship to anyone in the congregation, male or female, is to dishonor that person. In this we must put our personal feelings aside, and obey God.

There may well be a period of adjustment in which we feel uncomfortable at being part of a method of worship which we have always thought was wrong. But let us remember the example of the apostle Peter. All his life he had been told that certain foods were unclean. So entrenched was this belief that it took, not one, but three repetitions of a vision from Jesus to convince him otherwise. And even then, he was filled with doubts. It was only when he witnessed the Holy Spirit descending on Cornelius that he fully understood the profound change in his worship that was taking place. (Acts 10:1-48)

Jesus, our Lord, understands our weaknesses and gives us time to change, but eventually he expects us to come around to his point of view. He set the standard for men to imitate in the proper treatment of women. Following his lead is the course of humility and of true submission to the Father through his Son.

[box] “until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13 NWT)[/box]

[For more information on this topic, see Does a Woman Praying in the Congregation Violate Headship?

_______________________________________

[i] 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 Bernabe on 2019-12-11 06:11:31
(This comment is produced by machine translation. Sorry for the inaccuracies)

In order to enrich the content of this research, I believe it is opportune to contribute these quotations from Christian writers of the first centuries. I think we should be interested because they lived much closer than we did to the period when the New Testament was written, and therefore are more likely to have a better understanding of Christian teachings.

Let us guide our women to what is good: that they manifest the moderation of their language through silence... (Clement of Rome, A.D. 30-100)

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church, nor to teach, baptize, or fulfill any man's role as leader. (Tertullian, 197 A.D.)

How can we believe that he who does not even allow a woman to learn with too much authority will allow a woman to teach or baptize! He says: "let them be silent and ask their husbands at home". (Tertullian, 197 A.D.)

The woman must be silent in the Church. In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians he said; "Let your women be silent in the congregations; for it is not lawful for them to speak, but let them be subject, even as the law says. And if you would learn anything, ask your husbands at home; for it is unseemly for a woman to speak in the congregation. And also to Timothy: Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. For I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise dominion over a man, but to be in silence. (Cyprian, 250 A.D.)
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-12-11 10:08:09
  Bernabe,
  
  I'm mystified by your comment. I can only conclude that you read the title of this article, but chose not to read it carefully, because the points you are making are debunked by the article. Also, how can a women be silent in the congregation and at the same time pray and prophesy in it? (1 Cor 11:5)

Comment by vitisbp on 2019-11-23 01:16:38
You paraphrased 1 Corinthians 14:35, 36 and explained that Paul’s words about “Women are to be silent in the congregations...That if they want to learn something, they should just ask their husbands when they get home...” were in reality said by Paul in sarcasm, making fun of the wrong way some saw women’s role in the congregation. I almost cried from relief at seeing this correct understanding of those verses. I really enjoyed this article and needed this information. Thanks, Brother Wilson.

Comment by Atromitos on 2019-11-23 03:02:42
I've been wrestling with this topic for a while. The scriptures on headship and authority seemed undeniable. Add to this, I became very bible wary after waking up to the extent to which I have been deceived. Your thorough and clean research has given me food for thought and prayer that I didn't have the strength or confidence to prepare for myself.

As a faithful JW wife of 32 years, I've always believed that the harmony and joy in our marriage was due to our obedience to what we were taught regarding the headship arrangement, and gave all credit for our happiness to the JW teachings. I have recently come to the understanding that our success came from us both striving to be Christlike, first and foremost. In hindsight, nearly every major challenge in our marriage has been caused or complicated by trying to be faithful to JW teachings.

I submitted to this arrangement for over 30 years in the congregation, and in marriage. In the congregation, it's led to me being assaulted and silenced. Women are routinely mistreated and are only allowed to appeal to a group of men for a hearing. Even when sexually assaulted, to speak to another female is considered 'gossip'. If those men decide the offense does not merit discipline, the woman is expected to endure her humiliation and agony in silence. She must also sumit meekly to the authority of her abuser.

In the privacy of our marriage, love, respect and mutual protectiveness have been the overriding spirit for about 10 years. It was a case of common sense rising to the surface at a time of need. We both threw all of our strengths and abilities at the problem, while caring for each other. Nobody was 'head', just two adults fighting for the other's best interests. It's working. Now I understand why - we followed the Christ, when we didn't understand what that was.

Thank you for illuminating this topic.

Much love to you Eric
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:04:42
  Thank you for sharing that with us, Atromitos. The number of times Paul's words have been abused and misapplied over the centuries must now be astronomical. Yet, as you say, the perfect pattern of the Christ was there to be followed if only the men cared to do so.

Comment by Fani on 2019-11-23 06:25:43
Je suis mariée depuis 40 ans.
Ce qui a préservé mon mariage est le désir de plaire à Dieu.
Ce n'est pas le respect d'une autorité humaine.

J'ai toujours beaucoup aimé les lettres de Paul, bel exemple de rédemption, de foi et de courage.
Mais je ne comprenais pas son attitude envers les femmes quand il leur disait de se taire.
Ça me faisait mal.

D'un côté il parle de phoebé, ministre à Cenchrées ; il demande de lui faire bon accueil car elle s'est faite défenseur de beaucoup, de Paul compris.
A telle été ministre a la maison ?
A telle défendu Paul à la maison ?
A telle prié et surtout à t'elle prophétisé à la maison ?

C'était contradictoire.

Jésus n'a jamais fait taire les femmes.
Jesus est apparu d'abord aux femmes. Jésus a demandé aux femmes de rapporter sa résurrection aux hommes.
Jésus à enseigné les hommes et les femmes.
Jesus à dit que Marie avait choisi la bonne part. Marthe qui s'occupait de la maison pour servir les hommes n'avait pas fait le bon choix.

L'homme et la femme sont différents. Chacun a ses qualités propres.
Ils sont complémentaires.
Il n'y a pas de comparaison à faire entre eux. Il n'y a pas de rivalité entre eux. Ils sont à l'image de Dieu.

Ce qui est incroyable c'est qu'on a toujours su trouver les femmes pour évangéliser. Les femmes étaient toujours plus nombreuses que les hommes en prédication.
On a oublié que Paul place dans l'assemblée les évangélisateurs au même titre que les enseignants et les bergers. (même avant les enseignants, si il y a un ordre...) :
"Et il a donné certains comme apôtres, certains comme prophètes, certains comme évangélisateurs, certains comme bergers et enseignants, 12 en vue de la formation des saints, pour l’œuvre du ministère, pour la construction du corps du Christ," Ephésiens 4 : 11

Merci Éric de nous réhabiliter.
Encore plus de plaisir que ces explications viennent d'un homme.

Unie dans la famille de Dieu.
Nicole
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:19:24
  Merci beaucoup d'avoir ajouté cette information à la discussion. J'ai pris la liberté de coller dans une traduction Google que j'ai modifiée au mieux de mes capacités. Bien que je sois Canadien, malheureusement, je n’ai jamais appris le français. Donc, voici ma réponse en anglais avec le français inclus au bas de ce commentaire.
  
  Merci d'avoir élevé Phoebe. Quel excellent ajout à la discussion. Les points relatifs à la manière dont Jésus a traité les femmes sont également très pertinents.
  
  Meleti
  
  TRANSLATION OF NICOLE'S COMMENT
  I have been married for 40 years.
  What has preserved my marriage is the desire to please God.
  It is not the respect of a human authority.
  
  I have always loved Paul's letters, a beautiful example of redemption, faith and courage.
  But I did not understand his attitude towards women when he told them to shut up.
  It hurt me.
  
  On one side he speaks of Phoebe, Minister at Cenchreae; he asks her to welcome him because she has defended many, including Paul.
  She, a minister of the congregation?
  As such, she defended Paul?
  As such she prayed and prophesied in the congregation?
  
  It was contradictory.
  
  Jesus never shut up women.
  Jesus first appeared to women. Jesus asked the women to bring his resurrection back to men.
  Jesus taught men and women.
  Jesus said that Mary had chosen the right part. Martha, who looked after the house to serve the men, had not made the right choice.
  
  The man and the woman are different. Each has its own qualities.
  They are complementary.
  There is no comparison to make between them. There is no rivalry between them. They are in the image of God.
  
  What is incredible is that we have always been able to find women to evangelize. Women were always more numerous than men in preaching.
  It has been forgotten that Paul places evangelizers in the assembly as well as teachers and shepherds. (even before the teachers, if there is an order ...):
  "And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 for the formation of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building of the body of Christ," Ephesians 4 : 11
  
  Thank you Eric for rehabilitating us.
  Even more fun that these explanations come from a man.
  
  United in the family of God.
  Nicole
  
  MY REPLY
  Thank you so much for adding this information to the discussion. I have taken the liberty of pasting in a Google translation which I have edited to the best of my ability. Though I am a Canadian, lamentably, I never learned French. So here is my English answer with the French included at the bottom of this comment.
  
  Thank you for bringing up Phoebe. What an excellent addition to the discussion. Also the points relating to the way Jesus dealt with women are very relevant.
  
  Meleti

Comment by Ilya on 2019-11-23 07:08:27
Have found some interesting thoughts:

1. 2001translation.com
http://www.2001translation.com/NOTES.htm#_272

Women Not Allowed to Speak?

The words that start in the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:33 and run through verse 35 may well be spurious additions to the Bible, for they say:
‘And as [is true] in all the congregations of Holy Ones; the women should remain silent in the congregation. They shouldn’t be allowed to speak out. Rather (as the Law says), they should be submissive. And if they wish to know something, let them ask their husbands [when they get] home, for it’s disgraceful for a woman to speak out in a congregation.’

The reasons why we question the authenticity of these words are:

1. There is no such injunction in the Law of Moses. And it would simply be out of character for Paul, who went to such lengths to tell Christians that they were not under the Law, to quote the Law as something that they should obey, and then cite the Law as saying something that it doesn’t say.

2. These words are not found in the same location in ancient texts of this book, which gives scholars the impression that they may have been just the added marginal notes of someone with a strong opinion on this matter.

3. The injunction flies in the face of God’s use of women in outstanding and prominent positions, such as judges of IsraEl and as Prophets.

Also, because the words of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 seem to reflect the same type of bias and because they simply appear to be out of place and inconsistent with Paul’s previous words, we question their authenticity. However, we have left all the words in place for readers to judge for themselves.

On the other hand, the words at Colossians 3:18 (‘Women; Always obey your men, since this is proper [for those who are] in the Lord.’) seem to be in line with other scriptures and authentic.

2. Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

Paul also argues that married people must please their spouses, just as every Christian must please God. The letter is also notable for mentioning the role of women in churches, that for instance they must remain silent (1 Cor. 14:34–35), and yet they have a role of prophecy and apparently speaking tongues in churches (11:2–16). If 14:34–35 is not an interpolation, certain scholars resolve the tension between these texts by positing that wives were either contesting their husband's inspired speeches at church, or the wives/women were chatting and asking questions in a disorderly manner when others were giving inspired utterances. Their silence was unique to the particular situation in the Corinthian gatherings at that time, and on this reading, Paul did not intend his words to be universalized for all women of all churches of all eras.[16] After discussing his views on worshipping idols, Paul finally ends with his views on resurrection. He states that Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and rose on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul then asks: "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:12) and addresses the question of resurrection.

Comment by Vox Ratio on 2019-11-23 07:20:20
Hi Meleti,

Thank you for putting forward another well researched and stimulating disquisition.

In case you are not already familiar with her work, you might like to hear how Lucy Peppiatt, a female theologian from the Westminster Theological Centre, has also argued for a contrarian take on 1 Corinthians 11. If you're interested, you can hear some of the substance of her analysis here (beginning at 27:42).
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 07:45:24
  Thank Vox Ratio. I'll check it out.

Comment by Gogetter on 2019-11-23 08:22:18
Great reasoning and apparently hours of work Eric, thank you.
My question though is why would Jehovah allow such a false premise and serious translational error continue to be perpetually promoted down through the the ages? The current teachings of not only JW but most other religions has always made women appear to be second class humans and subservient to the will of the male. This of course especially in today’s modern society has caused many women to totally reject God’s Word as a misogynistic book from men.
Your research and reasoning when viewed with opened minds and true reasoning from the scriptures truly is in harmony with the God of love, but I dare say this will never change for the majority.
So to reiterate my question in another way isn’t this misinterpretation of scripture counter productive on Jehovah’s part to allow this false teaching to continue?
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:44:39
  Interesting question, Gogetter. We could go further. Why did Jehovah allow some scriptures to be written in such a way as to support belief in the trinity or hell fire. Millions have been and are continuing to be deceived by these teachings. Why didn't he write the Bible like a legal document wherein every potential ambiguity was foreseen and explained so as to remove all doubt.
  
  Jesus said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you.” (Mt 11:25, 26)
  
  If you want to get the gold out of raw earth, you have to put it in a crucible. Since his purpose is to refine the children of God for the purpose of restoring mankind back into his family, it appears this is the way.
  
  “. . .If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]?” (Ro 9:22-24)
  - Reply by Gogetter on 2019-11-23 13:27:44
    Eric
    I have no disagreements with what you just pointed out in response to my question and this is just a “scratch my head “ moment if you will for me.
    How many sincere Bible students and or Christians have the gift and resources you possess to come close to this part of your understanding?
    If maybe the early translators were not biased ( or like the WT Bible translators adding to the scriptures) or had been indoctrinated by their religious beliefs that had been handed down since just after the first century this and many other now discredited teachings Would be in Harmony with the true message from God.
    Maybe we would not have to do what you just did in a clear and logical way.... below
    
    “Preserving harmony with Paul’s words elsewhere in this letter—not to mention his other writings—and giving due consideration to Greek grammar and syntax and the fact he is addressing questions they’ve raised previously, we could render this in a phraseological way thus:
    
    “You say, “Women are to be silent in the congregations. That they’re not permitted to speak, but should be in subjection as the your law supposedly 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 Law 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, he’d better realize that what I’m writing to you comes from the Lord himself! 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.”
    
    This is not the way it actually reads ( as you made clear) in any Bible translation I know of and the point is why didn’t Jehovah make sure it was? He has for quite sometime now cleared up the Hellfire and Trinity doctrines long before JW’s and didn’t really have to have someone use phraseological means to accomplish this, ( not being critical of your use, loved it) one just needed to read the scriptures without preconceived bias and it is very plain.
    I don’t want to make a big deal of this, just interested in yours and others thoughts on this. I’m confidant I’m not the odd man out on this!
    
    Thank You for the thought provoking article brother.
- Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-11-23 16:32:19
  Gogetter,
  
  My 2 cents worth...
  
  Matthew 7:13,14 comes to my mind with this discussion, I'll elaborate soon.
  
  I believe that it is imperative for us to remember that Bible translations are just that, translations or works of man who commonly have prejudice or predisposition when performing their translation. Therefore, when one looks eisegetically at any topic, they will conclude with exactly what they were looking for. This is true of literally everyone. Thus the need for an exegetical consideration of the real facts that we have at any given time. However, this means that our staunch views on a subject may need to change as new facts become available, and some of these facts are found only after considerable effort is given to find them.
  
  The advent of the internet has made such fact finding missions much easier if one really wants to dig for these facts. At the simple stroke of a key, one can easily and logically consider the original Greek meanings, and do so with the support of real Bible and language scholars. This has never before been available so easily to the common person.
  
  Therefore, when Matthew 7:13,14 says: “Enter through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it, 14 because narrow is the gate and constricted is the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it!" (LEB) we could, and should apply this to the road of understanding. If we are satisfied with cruising down the freeway of religious and translational bias because it is easy, then one should question their destination. Rather, if sincere and significant effort is given with the heartfelt desire of understanding real truth, then one could be described as squeezing through the narrow gate and walking on a constricted road, but with a very rewarding destination.
  
  Having spent a lifetime pursuing religion, it is a constant mental challenge to open your mind to an exegetical pursuit of truth and fact. For decades I was in cruise control on the freeway of mind control where it was easy and I was rewarded for mindless support of religious doctrine and visible actions. Thing is, I was never really comfortable with so much of what I was required to preach and teach to maintain my position. Thankfully, I have been blessed by taking the off ramp to the narrow gate and constricted road occupied with so many who frequent this forum.
  
  As our understanding continues to grow and affect our staunch views, remember, the Lord "...is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance". (BSB) So for all of those who have been negatively affected by the translations, religions or any other creations of man, they will be lovingly considered by both our Father and our King.
  
  Grace and Peace
  JM
- Reply by Tori Te on 2019-11-24 10:11:25
  2 Thessalonians chapter 2 tells us why in that God allows certain ones to believing the error because they did not take pleasure in the truth but preferred liking & carrying on a lie. All due to the influence of The Man Of Lawless according to operation of Satan the devil. Whom it is emphasised will be done away with by The Spirit of The Truth, which Christ Jesus is now shining upon those loving the Truth & hating the lie!

Comment by lazarus on 2019-11-23 11:48:52
Thanks Eric for bringing this article out.
I do agree with you on this topic.

If a brother is taking the lead and asks if “anyone “ wants to open or close in Prayer, & a sister volunteers to, should this be an issue.

My 30 years as a JW had me believe women couldn’t pray in public using the above scriptures mentioned in your article as do many other religions.

Looking at the context one can’t to help think that seeing the body of Christ is made up of men and women that this body will be judging angels yet while on earth - 60 to 70 percent of the body needs to keep silent or benched when it comes to pray.

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!“

I don’t see that the Old Testament somehow is superior to the New Testament as the old was a shadow of the New. So if in the OT, God uses a women to Judge tells Abraham to listen to his wife, then why isn’t the NT much more favourable to the sisters? One can’t make the case in the OT against women taking the lead, not praying or reading scripture. Or are we following introduced corporate church policy/ rules using biblical words to fix it to suit the church or Organisation? Keeping things in order is important but who’s order is it? Men’s or Gods?

How valuable are the women folk? Extremely, I remember early on in my JW days being the only brother out in service and being surrounded by sisters. Being new on the scene, these sisters took the lead in all aspects of the territory as I had no clue what to do.

We had a piano in our KH and yes it was our Sister who played it. She lead us in music.

Colossians 3:16 . . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs . . .
If one of the purposes of songs/music is to teach,(part of worship) are women teaching men when they sing or write a spiritual song, as we see so often today in christian circles.
How blanket of a rule is silent, if it means what is currently being explained in 70-80 percent of Religion today.

There is a lot to pray about and we should ask the sisters to pray for us brothers in this matter.

Love to all, there’s a lot to consider.

Comment by louabbott on 2019-11-24 07:50:35
I am almost speechless. At first I thought your work on this particular topic would not be of great interest to me, Eric. But I was so wrong.

Your research is impeccable and very impressive. I thank you for that. But more, I am so thankful to finally see some harmony in the scriptures in this area. It strengthens my love for Jehovah and his word. And the harmony reveals Jehovah as even more lovable to me. Exquisitely refreshing, my brother. I pray that Jehovah long keeps you active in this work.

Comment by Tori Te on 2019-11-24 10:03:23
I have been so crushed for so long. This article is the very best I have ever read on the subject. Truly, Jesus said he would send us the the Spirit Of The Truth and the The Truth would set us free. This he is doing. The teaching & doctrines of men have dominated all of us to our injury. It's no wonder God's Son so strongly condemned it! but thanks to Our Heavenly Father & Christ Jesus we are set free. Thank you, dear brother for sharing your research. <3

Comment by frankvague on 2019-11-24 23:19:22
Brother Wilson, thanks for this fine article. I am happy that I finally took the time to register an account here and thus can express my thanks to you and the rest of the community. During the past few months many of the videos and articles on this site have been extremely helpful.

Regarding Deborah, it's interesting how the Organization has been downplaying her role in that part of Israelite history. I hadn't noticed that she is not given the title of a judge. It's even more outrageous, as in the overall context of Judges it seems it's hard to find a more balanced and God-fearing Israelite during that time period.

There's another bias at work as well, at least on a personal level, as we Witnesses are trained to find examples of faith in places where the writer's intention not necessarily was to portray them in that way. Judges is a good example of this. From scripture, Samson, the last judge, comes across as a very selfish character who is preoccupied with sex and getting drunk, and basically only thinks about his relationship with his god when in trouble. An example worthy of imitation, yeah, maybe, but his life can be as easily taken as an indication of the level of Israel's Canaanization at the time. The judges before him all did powerful acts of deliverance, but most showed some level of Canaanite influence, whether it be idolatry with an ephod or a foolish vow of sacrifice etc. The only true hero in the story is God, who can accomplish his will even through such imperfect men and bring glory to himself.

Given the overall cultural context and a patriarchal system (that Jehovah obviously did not plan to change at the time), the story of Deborah and Barak may convey a message of Israel's lack of faith. After Christ, we can understand clearly how God has viewed women as having equal worth as men throughout history. This is an indisputable fact. However, before Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit this was not so clear and the cultural pressure to see things through the perspective of male dominance was strong. I believe that in the period of Judges, Israel having patriarchal leaders clinging to women at the time of battle was an indication of the nation lacking courage and faith in God (Barak had a promise of victory from God, which should have been enough). At least in the ancient world I think this message would be clear.

This was just something random that came to mind regarding biases while reading. Thanks for the well-thought-of article!
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-26 09:17:54
  Welcome, FrankVague, and thank you for a well thought out and insightful comment.

Comment by Abigail on 2019-11-25 00:13:53
A special thank you to Brother Wilson for your loving invitation to the women on this site to feel free to share our viewpoint with candor! I will do just that! May our Father bless you always for your kind consideration after what we women have endured for so many centuries…and in the JW Organization.

There appears to be nothing in the Christian-Greek scriptures that addresses whether or not ANY individual person is allowed to pray on behalf of the congregation. If it had been wrong for a man to pray, then it would have been wrong for a woman to pray too. However, why do men assume they are free to pray on behalf of the congregation because there is nothing said against it, but assume it is wrong for a woman to pray on behalf of the congregation because there is nothing said for it? Why the discrepancy?

The discrepancy is the result of the man of Genesis 3:16. Our Heavenly Father pointed out that because of our fall into imperfection, men would dominate women more than they may have intended. But even though we were all born in sin and orphaned from our Father, he still offered us all the opportunity to be adopted by him and receive his inheritance!

John wrote under inspiration about the means of our adoption through Christ Jesus. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” 1 John 1:12,13 ESV.

The scripture says that ALL who received him had the right to become children of God because they would be born “not of blood” (not of the bloodline of the kingly man of Genesis 3:16 who makes harems), “nor of the will of the flesh” (of the imperfect man of Genesis 3:16 who will not allow women to possess a spiritual mind or heart like Deborah who was demoted [see The Demotion of Deborah]), “nor of the will of man” (the tradition or custom of the man of Genesis 3:16 who minimized women to the point they were not even allowed to speak to any man—as the disciples of Jesus noted who “marveled that he was talking with a woman” John 4:27 ESV).

Not everyone knows what Paul meant when he said about the knowing children of God, “We regard no one according to the flesh.” 2 Corinthians 5:16. ESV. But everyone should know something about what he meant when he said, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:38 ESV

Regardless of what the collective man of Genesis 3:16 decides for women regarding whether they should be able to pray or not on behalf of the congregation, I will not be hurt. I am free in the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord! Men who are free in the Christ lovingly want women to share the same freedom! Thank you to all men who recognize the meaning of freedom and strive to imitate the Christ in the way he treated women!

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-11-25 06:38:58
Eric, that was some article. Where did you get all those thoughts from ? How much effort did that take. I cannot imagine. Thank you so much for bringing out the role of women so well. I had to read over and over the explanations in 1 Corinthians to connect all the logic, and i like the reasoning, particularly that so much of the letter was in response to queries raised, presumably, by the house of Chloe. I had not thought of that, nor that Barak is not called a Judge at any point. I clearly have so much to learn.

You ask for comments, Eric. I am struggling with what you wrote about the counsel in 1 Timothy 2, as verses 11 downwards seem to follow quite well from vs 8,9. In those verses Paul does not permit a woman to teach, whereas the thoughts in 1 Corinthians 14:35-6 are against speaking. There might not be much difference in practice. I follow quite happily your thoughts in 1 Corinthians, , but am less certain about what you say at 1 Timothy, where i wonder whether the thought is more about teaching or "usurping authority or domineering over" (see Vines) a man, in other words putting the man down perhaps before all present. Is Paul simply advising that a woman (whether it is one particular woman does not matter) should wait and discuss the matter away from the congregation first. It is just a matter of maintaining order in the congregation.

An excellent article, though, which has forced me to spend hours and hours getting to grips with all you said.

Keep up the great work. You are forcing us to dig harder than I ever expected for these treasures, although nothing like the amount of work you are putting in.

Comment by Eleasar on 2019-11-26 06:03:51
Is Kephale head or source?

This was a debate that started in the 1980s as some trinitarian scholars wanted to address the issue of Jesus having God as his head. I had followed this with great interest and carried out an extensive study on the subject. Some of those who proposed and supported ‘source’ were Dr Cervin, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, Philip B. Payne, and Dr Gilbert Bilezikian.

The response against these conclusions were championed by Wayne Grudem, John Piper etc. At the same time, there was a debate in the Anglican Communion the role of women as priests and bishops etc. This discussion started using the ‘source’ view.

The challenge for those outside the debate is to examine the points made by each side and to weigh them up and to see how strong the points are in each side.

To understand this better, ex JWs might want to read Appendix 5B on “Christ Presence (or Parousia)” in the NWT Reference Bible 1984. See the link here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060093

On the surface this might seem like a well written article but there are flaws due to the information that has been left out. The reader cannot make an informed decision as crucial information and the other side of the coin was missing.

Hence, we need to be careful with all sources and make aware the historic, the socio-cultural issues, and other matters before we quote it.

So the question, we need to address is does kephale (mainly translated as head) mean having ‘authority over’ or source?

Dictionaries and Lexicons
Six out of the seven used for the NT give head as “authority over, ruler, leader” as a meaning of kephale. The only one that does not is Liddell and Scott and we will address their editors view from a letter sent to Wayne Grudem in a moment.

1. BDAG (2000), 542:
A being of high status, head (a) in the case of living beings, to denote superior rank ….Of the father as head of the family…. Of the husband in relation to his wife…. Of Christ in relation to the Christian community…. But Christ is the head… Of the universe as a whole… And of every cosmic power
(b) of things the uppermost part, extremity, end, point
Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch6 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1988), lists for kephalē no such meaning as “source” but does give the meaning “Oberhaupt” (“chief, leader”) (pp. 874-875).

2. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 200: (b) in transferred sense of (a) [an anatomical term], as directing agent within a ranking system 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18
3. Louw-Nida: Johannes P. Louw and Eugene E. Nida, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988): “one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command—’one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over’” Ephesians 4:15… 1 Corinthians 11:3 (vol. 1, p. 739)

4. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996), 254: “head, leader”

5. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon (1961), page 749:
B. of persons; 1. head of the house, Herm.sim. 7.3; 2. chief, head-man...3. religious superior ... 4. of bishops, kefalai ekklhsiwn [other examples include “of the bishop of the city of Rome, being head of all the churches]...5. kefalh einai c. genit. [to be head, with genitive] take precedence of

6. T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), “he who or that which plays a leading role: in a societal group (?),” 396

7. Liddell and Scott: Greek-English Lexicon edited by H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, and revised by Henry Stuart Jones (ninth edition; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968; revision of 9th edition of 1940), p. 945:

II. 1. Of things, extremity
a. In Botany
b. In Anatomy
c. Generally, top, brim of a vessel...capital of a column
d. In plural, source of a river, Herodotus 4.91 (but singular, mouth); generally, source, origin, Orphic Fragments 21a; starting point [examples: the head of time; the head of a month].

This is the only one that gives'source'. Wayne Grudem submitted his research on kephale to the Editor of the Liddell and Scott P. G. W. Glare and received the following response on April 14, 1997:

“The entry under this word in LSJ is not very satisfactory. . . . I have no time at the moment to discuss all your examples individually and in any case I am in broad agreement with your conclusions. I might just make one or two generalizations. κεφαλή is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew rosh and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority. The supposed sense ‘source’ of course does not exist and it was at least unwise of Liddell and Scott to mention the word. At the most they should have said ‘applied to the source of a river in respect of its position in its (the river's) course’.

By NT times the Septuagint had been well established and one would only expect that a usage found frequently in it would come easily to such a writer as St. Paul …. I hasten to add that in most cases the sense of the head as being the controlling agent is the one required and that the idea of preeminence seems to me to be quite unsuitable, and that there are still cases where κεφαλή can be understood, as in the Septuagint, in its transferred sense of head or leader.

Once again, thank you for sending me the article. I shall file it in the hope that one day we will be able to embark on a more thorough revision of the lexicon.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Glare

From the above we can see the Liddell and Scott will probably make revisions next time around. That means the 7 major lexicons all use the word head with the sense of authority over.

Uses in the LXX and NT.

Now let us look at its use in the Bible where kephale means “head with authority over”.

Judges 11:11, LXX: “So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and all the people made him head and leader over them” (2nd cent. B.C.).

2 Kings (2 Samuel) 22:44, LXX: David says to God, “You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me” (2nd cent. B.C.).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:1 (A), LXX: “Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel with all the heads of the tribes”.

Lamentations 1:5, LXX: [of Jerusalem] “Her foes have become the head, her enemies prosper, because the Lord has made her suffer for the multitude of her transgressions; her children have gone away, captives before the foe”.

1 Cor 11:3: “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.”

Eph 1:22: “He has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church”.

Eph 5:22–24: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands”.

Col 2:10: “And you have come to fullness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority”.

There is more evidence that can be shared from ancient literature etc.

In addition, in the work by Elizabeth A. McCabe on the Isis Cult in Ephesus, she proposes it as a theory and not as definite. If one were to go back to the NWT Reference Bible 1984 and look at Appendix 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures see link https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060076 we see that they quote Professor George Howard who proposes a theory and the WT takes it as fact. I believe George Howard has written to others stating that he is unhappy with WT using his work this way.

Finally, we have to be careful when throughout the history of Christian belief a new application is made almost 2000 years later and we discard the historic understanding. This reminds me of the “great crowd of other sheep” understanding that was supposedly revealed/deciphered in 1935. Are we doing this because of the evidence or the influence of the cultural mores of our society? Each person must research and study to draw sound evidence-based and reasoned conclusions.

May our Heavenly Father bless our efforts with the wisdom from above.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-26 22:09:32
  Hi Eleasar. I started to comment, but it turned out to be too long for a comment. So here's the link to the response article.

Comment by Ina Irby on 2019-11-26 10:27:24
There are nuances of evidence that evade our current understanding of history, on that note Deborah was so interesting she showed up out of the blue. We really have no other woman who is talked about that had such a high position and took men into active warfare with our Heavenly Father’s blessing. Yes, there was Miriam but she was disciplined and shown to be a murmurer which proved to be her downfall and she was not held in a very good light. Up into that point in the scriptures women were MOSTLY subservient and in positions where they took care of their families, helped teach the law in the home.

Men NOT following the law, women could easily be abused with no real protection, Abigail is a good example. She had a drunk for a husband fortunately for her, her life made a turn for the better. David to the rescue!! He was known for his MERCY. It is my understanding that when men followed our Heavenly Father and worshiped correctly with mercy and love everyone benefited.

I’ll make it simple, men have gotten it wrong making decisions that have cost lives!!!

My kind in the world of Jehovah’s witnesses have NOT ever sat on judicial committees making decisions, sitting on the judgement seat. Thank goodness! That always seems to get men in trouble. Judging people. Judging, pride, power and avarice.

We have seen the horrible injustices done on women, children, those who have no helper. Things may have worked out differently if a woman’s prayer had prevailed in behalf of the above reviled. But alas purity in worship is the goal here.

So I feel it isn’t really about women and men praying to our Heavenly Father. It is about purity of worship. In our effort to get it right men and women have corrupted TRUE worship for many, many centuries. Our goal is to establish a worship that will be acceptable by our Great and Merciful King. That being said Jesus himself never forbade to have a women say a prayer. Our goal is let us come together in love. Gaining Our Great and Merciful King’s approval and of one mind, seeing an opportunity to give a great witness.

We are all guessing; we have no idea of how things were truly run in the first century; details are locked away in death. Even so, in the first century congregations we know of, the time period of Paul was not an easier time to live in if you were of my kind.

I am not a feminist! Never have I been. I love beautiful, kind men. I do however recognize the importance of taking an opportunity.

I can’t say I would not be disappointed if this group did not see the opportunity of taking the skirt of a women in prayer.

For I feel we are in a great battle, a spiritual war. Never to be repeated in all of human history, it is recorded in the scriptures “ women are a large army”. So I beseech ALL, Let us FIGHT! Not all will want this opportunity but please hear our pleas to allow us to take part in this fight!!!

All my love to ALL of you
Your sister, Ina Irby

Comment by frankvague on 2019-11-26 20:35:33
In the section on 1 Tim 2:15 you said "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..."

The Messianic reading is appealing, as it would provide an easier escape from this problematic passage, but there seem to be certain problems with it that make it unlikely. I appreciate the fact that you propose the Messianic view only tentatively. The NET Bible footnote on the verse comments summarises the problems nicely:

"Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth—that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context. However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, sōthēsētai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; [b] that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men; [c] – – [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view." (The full footnote is quite insightful on the different views on this verse.)

By the way, this topic would have made a great series of articles. As it is, it feels almost too extensive to discuss here in a meaningful way.
- Reply by frankvague on 2019-11-27 02:22:56
  Also, one of the traditional interpretations on "Adam was formed first, then Eve" links this reasoning with the rights of the firstborn. As the firstborns in God's arrangement had certain privileges (dare I say authority, haha), so would Adam have had, being the firstborn in the family.
  
  Whatever the case, a harsh literal reading of 1 Timothy chapter 2 out of its cultural context is hardly appropriate. The points made in your article about the special situation in Ephesus and the whole Diana/Artemis cult were great. Regarding cultural context, I have found John Stott's comments on these verses quite useful in his BST commentary on 1 Timothy. He writes:
  
  If [the people using these verses to force women to remain silent] are consistent in interpreting 1 Timothy 2:8–15, they will then insist that men must always lift up their hands when they pray (8), that women must never plait their hair or wear jewellery (9), and that in no circumstances may women teach men (11–12).
  
  We have to discern in Scripture between God’s essential revelation (which is changeless) and its cultural expression (which is changeable). Then we are in a position to preserve the former as permanent and universal, and transpose the latter into contemporary cultural terms. Thus, in response to Jesus’ command to us to wash one another’s feet, we neither obey literally and go round washing people’s feet, nor dismiss the passage as having no relevance to us, but discern what is intrinsic (no service will be too menial if we love one another) and then transpose it into the realities of today (we will gladly wash the dishes or clean the toilet).
  
  In the end, our decision whether women may ever teach men, or be ordained to the pastorate, or exercise other leadership roles in the church, will depend on our understanding of the nature of pastoral leadership. If we . . . see the local presbyter as essentially an authority figure . . . then we are likely to conclude that it is inappropriate for women to occupy such an authoritative position.
  
  Supposing, on the other hand, we begin our thinking about Christian pastoral leadership with the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:35ff., where he drew a distinction between two human communities whose leaders operate on different principles. In the world, he said, ‘officials exercise authority over them’. But, he added, ‘Not so with you.’ Instead, in his community greatness would be measured by service. Why should it be thought inappropriate for women to exercise such servant-leadership?
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-27 08:19:35
    Thank you for this sound reasoning, FrankVague. You're a great addition to our community.
- Reply by Helanren on 2019-11-30 05:05:07
  Some scholars argue that Paul reacted on a sexual revolution that was observed throughout the Roman Empire. Just google “new Roman woman”. Professor Scot McKnight writes about those women:
  
  “[T]hese women despised marriage and childbearing and childrearing. Furthermore, this [Artemis] fertility cult extended their sexual and gender freedoms into open practices of abortion and contraception.” [1]
  
  Nonetheless, I think this was not what Paul had in mind and the “new Roman woman” idea is historically debatable. [2]
  
  I find Marg Mowzco’s argument to be more compelling. She writes:
  
  “I suspect “Gnostic, or semi-Gnostic, ideas” are the impetus for Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:15. It is plausible that in this verse Paul was assuring a married woman (or women) in the Ephesian church that if she renounced celibacy, had sex with her husband and became pregnant, she would not jeopardise or lose her salvation. Rather, “she will be saved.”
  I suspect Paul’s message in 1 Timothy 2:15 is that salvation is not dependent on celibacy and remaining childless, but is dependent on continuing in faith, love, holiness (hagiasmos) and modesty, or self-control (sōphrosunē), which are “expressions of a saved life”. Holiness and self-control are also ascetic ideals. By associating these expressions and ideals with childbirth, Paul shows that marriage, sex, and procreation are not opposed to the pious virtues of holiness and modesty, as many Christians, including Jewish Proto-Gnostic Christians, were teaching in Ephesus and many other parts of the Roman world.” [3]
  
  [1] The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible, Scot McKnight, Grand Rapids, 2008, p. 199.
  
  [2] https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2014/08/02/historical-context-the-new-roman-woman-and-biblical-interpretation/ I do not agree with the author’s complementarian view, but he does a good job in explaining why the idea is historically debatable.
  
  [3] https://margmowczko.com/chastity-salvation-1-timothy-215/
  - Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-30 09:54:13
    Thank you for sharing this information and insight, Helanren. It highlights how we must avoid getting all bent out of shape over on passage or jump to conclusions based on a single sentence when such seems to conflict with other passages. There must be harmony. Paul was not a hypocritical man, so we need to find the consistent thread through all of his teachings.
    - Reply by Helanren on 2019-12-01 15:19:11
      Indeed! Often we want to find our own conclusions, instead of God’s. We agree with what we already agree on, and disagree with what we already disagree with. This especially happens a lot when reading Old Testament narrative. In this genre the author usually doesn’t give a(n explicit) moral judgment.
      We think, for example, that because the two spies in Jericho are saved because Rahab lies, we can also lie when our enemies want something from us. Why do we think that way? Because it’s very normal to want to lie when under stress.
      I am not saying that we are never allowed to lie (that is another story, one I still haven’t fully figured out for myself), I just want to explain that this particular Bible story can’t be used as a validation for lying when under certain circumstances.
      The same applies to our view on women. If we have a complementarian view, it's far too easy to find "proof" for our presupposition.
      We really need to be humble to understand God’s Word, something (being humble) that’s not easy!
      
      Thanks by the way for this amazing article!

Comment by Does a Woman Praying in the Congregation Violate Headship? - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2019-11-26 22:07:52
[…] [This is a continuation of the topic on the Role of Women in the Congregation.] […]

Comment by Does a Woman Praying in the Congregation Violate Headship? - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2019-11-26 22:07:52
[…] article began as a comment in response to Eleasar’s thought-provoking, well-researched comment on the meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians […]

Comment by Helanren on 2019-12-02 07:19:02
The Hebrew word translated as “rib(s)”, used in Genesis 2:21,22, is “ṣê·lā‘”. The word occurs around forty times and is only used architecturally in the tabernacle and temple passages (except Genesis 2 (of course), and 2 Samuel 16:13.). It often refers to one side or the other (e.g. two sides of the ark, two sides of the temple, north and south side, etcetera). Adam’s own statement also suggests that Eve wasn’t formed from a “rib”. He says: “This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, because from man she was taken” (Genesis 2:23). If both bone and flesh are involved, what makes more sense: “rib” or “side”? [1]

Most of the time the Akkadian cognate “ṣê·lu” refers to the entire side or to the entire rib cage. In the Targums, [2] the Septuagint and the Vulgate, the translation of ṣê·lā‘ (‘il‘, pleura and costis respectively) can either mean rib or side. When the Bible was translated in English, the rendering “rib” became entrenched. [3]

The Hebrew word translated as “deep sleep” (Genesis 2:21), is “tar·dê·māh”. This word is used in three circumstances:
1. When a person is unresponsive to circumstances in the human realm induced by something in the human realm (Judges 4:19,21; Psalm 76:6; Proverbs 19:15).
2. When a person is unresponsive to circumstances in the human realm and equally unresponsive to deity (1 Samuel 26:12; Isaiah 29:10; Jonah 1:5,6).
3. When a person has become unresponsive to the human realm in order to receive communication from the divine realm (Genesis 15:12; Job 4:13; Daniel 8:13, 10:9).
So, in all three circumstances the person is not aware of what happens in the real world. The Septuagint renders tar·dê·māh in both Genesis 2:21 and 15:12 with the Greek word “ekstasis”. Most English versions translate ekstasis in Acts 10:15, 11:5 and 22:17 as “trance”. The Latin word “sopor”, used in the Vulgate, refers to abnormal sleep, including the sleep that comes about during a trance. [4]

Imagine that, instead of God using a rib from Adam to form Eve, God let Adam experience a trance. Adam sees a vision of himself being cut in half, and from this side a woman is built. Adam understands that God wants to teach him an important, ontological (and not material) truth. His conclusion: “This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, because from man she was taken” (Genesis 2:23).
The author’s conclusion: “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and she will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (2:24): When man and woman become one flesh, they are returning to their original, Edenic state.[5]

[1] The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, John H. Walton, Downers Grove, 2015, p. 77,78.
[2] Targums: Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures read in synagogues for people whose main language was Aramaic.
[3] The Lost World of Adam and Eve, p. 78.
[4] Ibid., p. 79,80.
[5] Ibid., p. 80,81.

Comment by ¿Una Mujer Orando en la Congregación Viola el Principio de Sujeción? | Los Bereanos on 2019-12-03 11:14:41
[…] lo que se puede perder lo que está escrito aquí. Con eso en mente, invitaría a todos a leer el comentario de Eleasar antes de continuar con este […]

Comment by James Paul on 2019-12-14 08:16:07
Nice article Eric, I've read it several times and taken time to reflect on the matter. First, I'm glad women have been given equal privileges of worship as men. Reading the bible in context clearly shows this. In fact, when I was a witness I wondered why Jehovah didn't allow women privileges of service and yet anointed some to be Christ's co-rulers, now I know it is human religions that restrict them not. Full participation of women in worship makes perfect sense bibilically as they were anointed as prophetesses, Judges and apostles too. I'm so glad to come to an accurate understanding of this context and I hope our dear sisters will now participate fully in our online Bible study by volunteering to pray.

Comment by Sheryl Bogolin on 2020-05-16 21:19:32
Completely new thoughts for me under the sub-title: "The problem of punctuation." I have to re-read this when I'm more alert.
But it did make me recall, on a lighter note "the problem of punctuation" Same 6 words, but punctuation is the key: Woman, without her man, is nothing. OR: Woman, without HER, man is nothing. :-)

Comment by ctron on 2021-08-20 19:55:42
But isn't Barak listed as one of the judges in Hebrews 11:32?
- Reply by Fani on 2021-11-04 18:25:12
  Dans hébreux 11 : 32 Barak est cité mais il n'est pas dit qu'il était juge.

Comment by AnnaNana on 2022-11-03 10:03:10
5:22-24 - You wives must learn to adapt yourselves to your husbands, as you submit yourselves to the Lord, for the husband is the "head" of the wife in the same way that Christ is head of the Church and saviour of the body. The willing subjection of the Church to Christ should be reproduced in the submission of wives to their husbands.
5:25-27 - But, remember, this means that the husband must give his wife the same sort of love that Christ gave to the Church, when he sacrificed himself for her. Christ gave himself to make her holy, having cleansed her through the baptism of his Word - to make her an altogether glorious Church in his eyes. She is to be free from spots, wrinkles or any other disfigurement - a Church holy and perfect.
5:28-33 - Men ought to give their wives the love they naturally have for their own bodies. The love a man gives his wife is the extending of his love for himself to enfold her. Nobody ever hates or neglects his own body; he feeds and looks after it. And that is what Christ does for his body, the Church. And we are all members of that body, we are his flesh and blood! 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. The marriage relationship is doubtless a great mystery, but I am speaking of something deeper still - the marriage of Christ and his Church. In practice what I have said amounts to this: let every one of you who is a husband love his wife as he loves himself; let the wife reverence her husband.

(JBPhillips Translation)

The privilege of showing subjection under difficult circumstances glorifies Jehovah. If imperfect humans can keep integrity despite showing honor and proper respect and submission to dictators or a difficult mate or those who lord it over the flock, then the disobedient angels who didn't remain in subjection to their perfect heavenly Father certainly have no excuse!

We (both men and women who are in subjection to whoever is currently allowed authority over us, whether it be governors or presidents or managers or whatever) keep this sign of authority because of the angels.

All of us are "women" when we are in subjection to any authority. (Just like all of us are "kings" in regard to those in subjection to us.) "Give her the reward for what she does, and let her works praise her in the city gates." Those in heaven see when we (men or women in godly subjection) endure subjection under hardship, like Joseph, Abigail, Jacob during his time with Laban, etc.

Granted, we may have temporary assignments now. Are you a mother? You are a "king" over the children. Are you a worker in an office? You are a "woman" in regard to the manager.

"Women" have "long hair" figuratively speaking in regard to the sign of subjection to authority. The angels are often depicted as women (like in Zechariah when flying the wicked woman in the ephah jar to Shinar) when showing their subjection. The angels as a group are depicted as Jehovah's "woman" because of their subjection to him. The anointed are depicted as Jesus' "woman" and "bride" because of their subjection to him as a group.

Babylon the Great is depicted as a harlot because she is not really in subjection to her "husband", the one she claims to be in subjection to, namely, God.

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon all teach us illustratively what a good "woman" and a bad "woman" look like. Proverbs 31 illustrates the loyal bride of Christ as an organization. Proverbs 5 about an immoral woman is warning about adulterous false religious worship. Song of Solomon shows the loyalty of the bride as an organization. Solomon's words about treacherous "women" are describing what false religion does and looks like. It is advice for both men and women, those who would either choose to join true worshippers or those who would choose to take part in adulterous bad worship.

When Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, "one man in a thousand I have found, but a woman I have not found," at that time Jesus was alive in heaven and loyal, but his bride/church/woman was not yet in existence. Song of Solomon goes on to describe Jesus figuratively as "dazzling and ruddy, he stands out among ten thousand," and a "head of gold" and many other qualities that describe him as King of the Kingdom. The description of the Shulammite are qualities of the 144,000 in the Kingdom, "like the tower of David, with the circular shields of a thousand mighty men", etc.

"This sacred secret is great."

Understanding the Role of Women in God's Family

The Demotion of Deborah

Women prophesying in the congregation

Women judging in the congregation

A female apostle?

An ecclesiastical hierarchy

Paul speaks to the Ephesians

Paul speaks to the Corinthians

Three controversial passages

Paul answers a letter

The problem of punctuation

The situation in Ephesus

Understanding Paul’s reference to headship

Should women pray in the congregation?

Conclusion

Archived Comments

Comment by Bernabe on 2019-12-11 06:11:31

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-12-11 10:08:09

Comment by vitisbp on 2019-11-23 01:16:38

Comment by Atromitos on 2019-11-23 03:02:42

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:04:42

Comment by Fani on 2019-11-23 06:25:43

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:19:24

Comment by Ilya on 2019-11-23 07:08:27

Comment by Vox Ratio on 2019-11-23 07:20:20

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 07:45:24

Comment by Gogetter on 2019-11-23 08:22:18

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-23 08:44:39

Reply by Gogetter on 2019-11-23 13:27:44

Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-11-23 16:32:19

Reply by Tori Te on 2019-11-24 10:11:25

Comment by lazarus on 2019-11-23 11:48:52

Comment by louabbott on 2019-11-24 07:50:35

Comment by Tori Te on 2019-11-24 10:03:23

Comment by frankvague on 2019-11-24 23:19:22

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-26 09:17:54

Comment by Abigail on 2019-11-25 00:13:53

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-11-25 06:38:58

Comment by Eleasar on 2019-11-26 06:03:51

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-26 22:09:32

Comment by Ina Irby on 2019-11-26 10:27:24

Comment by frankvague on 2019-11-26 20:35:33

Reply by frankvague on 2019-11-27 02:22:56

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-27 08:19:35

Reply by Helanren on 2019-11-30 05:05:07

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-11-30 09:54:13

Reply by Helanren on 2019-12-01 15:19:11

Comment by Does a Woman Praying in the Congregation Violate Headship? - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2019-11-26 22:07:52

Comment by Does a Woman Praying in the Congregation Violate Headship? - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2019-11-26 22:07:52

Comment by Helanren on 2019-12-02 07:19:02

Comment by ¿Una Mujer Orando en la Congregación Viola el Principio de Sujeción? | Los Bereanos on 2019-12-03 11:14:41

Comment by James Paul on 2019-12-14 08:16:07

Comment by Sheryl Bogolin on 2020-05-16 21:19:32

Comment by ctron on 2021-08-20 19:55:42

Reply by Fani on 2021-11-04 18:25:12

Comment by AnnaNana on 2022-11-03 10:03:10

Recent content

Addendum to What Did Thomas Mean When He Said "My Lord and My God"?

What Did Thomas Mean When He Said “My Lord and My God"?

Confusing Essence and Identity: Why the Jesus-Is-God People Get It Wrong

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is a Named Defendant in a NY Court Child Sexual Abuse Case

How to Deal with SLANDER

If We Are Saved by Grace Then Why Does Truth Matter?