The Place of Women

A Scriptural Perspective on the Place of Women

(c) 2000 William R. Cunningham
Second edition: February 7, 2001

Introduction

It is taught in many churches that basically women are inferior to men and therefore are restricted to certain activities.  For example, it is taught that women cannot be pastors in a church.  It is taught that women cannot preach from a pulpit but must stand at the podium.  It is taught that the wife must obey the husband and yield to his wishes.  Many other such things are taught in the church that basically degrade the women of the world and the Christian faith.

Does the Bible indeed teach us that women are inferior?  Does the Bible restrict women from serving in certain capacities in the church?  Is a woman bound to do whatever her husband wants?  What is the purpose of women and what are their roles in life?  These and other questions are the topic of this study.  We are going to examine from a scriptural perspective the place of women in life.

This is an inductive study on topics regarding women especially as they pertain to Christianity and church.  We will examine the pertinent scriptures regarding women in their proper context and extract the meaning of those scriptures regarding the place of women.  Let's first discuss some of the common beliefs about women.

Common Beliefs Concerning Women

Probably all of the beliefs about women can be summarized in the statement, "Women are inferior to men."  Consider the following teachings that persist in the church today.

1. Women are not supposed to be pastors.  Pastors are thought to be leaders of the church and women are not allowed to lead or have authority over men.
2. Women are not supposed to have authoritative positions over a man.  It is believed that God has placed the man in the authoritative position.  The natural order then is that men are superior to women.
3. Women are not natural leaders as men are.  God has endowed the male to be natural leaders whereas the female are endowed with the spirit of obedience (to the male).
4. Women are the cause for the sin in the earth today because of Eve.  It is believed that since Eve was weak, she was deceived into allowing sin to enter the human race.
5. Wives are to obey their husbands.
6. Women are excessively emotional and men are analytical, which make men better suited to lead
7. Women are weak and therefore should not lead men who are stronger.
8. Women are to have their hair covered in church
9. Women are not supposed to wear makeup
10. Women are not supposed to wear pants

These and other such rules prove to restrict the life of the woman in ministry and in everyday life.

Many of these rules are said to originate from the Apostle Paul.  Paul is said to be the father of the disdain for women, which we will find is not the case at all.  Many men and women have therefore used the Epistles of Paul to justify the teachings that restrict the activities of women in ministry and in their personal lives.

Are these claims about women true?  Are women inferior to men by God's design or have we misinterpreted the scriptures to justify our own heresies and prejudice against the female gender of the human race?

Original State

The first thing that I would like to do is to examine the information given to us in the creation account in Genesis.  From this we can learn a lot about the purpose of women, the roles of women, and God's intent for women.

Genesis 1:26 through Genesis 1:27 (NKJV) ²⁶Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ²⁷So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Let's look at these verses very carefully.  The first thing that you might notice is that God refers to Himself in plural.  He says, "Let Us." He then says that He (plural) will make man in his own image and again He uses the plural, "in Our Likeness."  The next thing you will notice is that he refers to man in the plural sense by saying, "let them." The point to notice here is that God refers to Himself in the plural and He refers to man in the plural sense.

The "us" cannot refer to the angels that are present with God because man is made in the image of God alone.  What is the image of God in man? The traditional view is that God's image is certain moral, ethical, and intellectual abilities. A more recent view, based on Hebrew grammar and the knowledge of the ancient Near East, interprets the phrase as meaning, "Let us make man as our image" (the Hebrew preposition in this phrase can be translated as). In ancient times an emperor might command statues of himself to be placed in remote parts of his empire. These symbols would declare that these areas were under his power and reign. So God placed humankind as living symbols of Himself on earth to represent His reign. This interpretation fits well with the command that follows-to reign over all that God has made.

Now in verse 27 you will notice that it says again that God create man in His image, which is plural.  The scripture then concludes by saying that God created man as male and female (plural sense), which is the image of God.  So God created man as male and female and man (the male and female as one) were in the image of God.

"According to Our likeness" This phrase draws attention to the preceding figure of speech. Since God is Spirit, there can be no "image" or "likeness" of Him in the normal sense of these words. Indeed, image making was later strongly prohibited because of the clear ties it has with idolatry (see Exodus 20:4-6). We may not make images of God for He has already done so! We are His images; it is we who are in His likeness. This is the reason God values people so much: we are made to reflect His majesty on earth. The phrase "have dominion" means to rule as God's regent. That is, people are to rule as God would-wisely and prudently-over all that God has made (fish, birds, cattle, and so on).

What does this tell us?  It implies that both the male and the female man were in the image of God.  However, it is not that the male was in the image of God independently and the female was independently in the image of God.  The two formed one unit, which God called man, and the two together were in the image of God.

MAN or Adam?

You will notice in the Creation Narrative that the name Adam is not used until much later in Chapter two.  Instead the word man is used.  Consider the following scripture.

Genesis 2:18 through Genesis 2:19 (KJV) ¹⁸And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. ¹⁹And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The word man used in verse eighteen is the same Hebrew word Adam used in verse nineteen.  The word man comes from the Hebrew word adam (pronounced aw-dawm), which means ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.), person.  This is the same word Adam that is used in verse nineteen and beyond.  The point here is that the word Adam is not a name; rather it is a title, namely a human being.  God created adam, that is, humans, and he created them male and female.  Consider the following verse.

Genesis 5:1 through Genesis 5:2 (KJV) ¹This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ²Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Here again we see the use of the word adam and man (the New King James Version of the Bible uses the word "mankind" instead of adam).  Now there is a shifting towards identifying the man as well as categorizing him.  In other words, his name will be Adam.  Also note that Adam was in the form of female and male.  This doesn't mean that adam the human was bisexual.  It merely means that there was a female human and a male human.  For example, we see a tiger and simply say "tiger."  We don't specify whether it is a male of female unless there is a real need to know.  There is a male tiger and a female tiger but both are called tiger.  The same applies to humans.  There is a male human and a female human and both are called humans (man, adam, mankind).

Who Had Dominion?

Genesis 1:28 (NKJV) ²⁸Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

God blessed both the male and the female and they both were to multiply and have dominion over God's creation.  We see that they (male and female) were supposed to multiply and fill the earth with other humans.  Here we see a major purpose in the different sexes, namely to reproduce.  Two males or two females cannot reproduce. 

Notice that there is no mention of the male having dominion over the female or vice versa.  Humans held dominion over all God created.  If God intended for the male to have dominion over the female, then surely it would have been stated as the purpose and design of God.  It isn't.  As a matter of fact, it is specifically stated that they both were to have dominion over God's creation.

Superiority

Are men superior to women?  The male species of humans typically have more muscle mass then females.  The male species of humans tend to be larger then the females.  Since human males (henceforth men) have more muscle mass then the females (henceforth women), then men tend to be stronger then women.  This is probably the most readily visible difference between men and women.  Men tend to think differently then women.  Women tend to be more in tuned with their emotions.  This doesn't mean that women have more emotions then men.  It only means that they are more in tuned with their emotions and therefore can express it more freely then men.  Men tend not to know how they feel and therefore don't know what to make or how to express the feelings they have.  It still isn't certain how much of these traits are learned or intrinsic to the sex.

OK.  I'm sure you know that there are many differences between men and women.  However, do these differences imply that men are superior to women?  No they do not!  This is because God did not design men to be superior to women.  Any superiority that men have over women is established by men and obtained by force and deception. 

Women have to fight probably twice as hard for the same pay for the same job.  She has more to prove as an engineer, doctor, lawyer, pastor, etc.  Why?  She has to work extra hard simply because she is female and nothing else.  When we break it down like this I'm sure you see how silly and derogatory this is to women.  No.  The inferiority of women to men is not God ordained.  It is a lie that has been passed down from generation to generation.

So men are not superior to women nor are women superior to men.  God is superior to all.  Men and women were designed to compliment each other.  Adam (the male) was alone until the woman was created.  She was created from Adam to identify and so that they could be interdependent.  Men come from women and God created the woman from the man (male).

There is an argument for male superiority that is derived from the fact that the male was created before the female.  This gives, so they say, men a higher order than the woman, which suggests that the woman is inferior.  However, this doesn't hold since man (human) was the last on God's creation agenda.  This reasoning would mean that the animals and plants had a higher standing then humans since they were created prior to humans!  Since Jesus suggests that we are more important to God then the grass and birds (Matthew 6), then this reasoning doesn't hold.

Original Purpose Of Male and Female

Now let's move more into the scriptures that suggest the purpose of the male and the female.

Genesis 2:18 (NKJV) ¹⁸And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

The word "man" here is the same word used for Adam.  It means basically a human being.  From the context however we see that this human was a male.  Now things get pretty interesting here.  The LORD says that it isn't good that the man be alone.  The word "alone" is derived from a Hebrew word baòdad, which means to divide, that is, (reflexively) be solitary:-alone. The specific Hebrew word for alone is bad and it means properly separation; by implication a part of the body, branch of a tree; as adverb, apart, only, besides (From the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).  In general it was not good for the man to be all by himself.  The interesting thing is what God does next.

All One-NOT!

I would like to take this opportunity to point something out because of a teaching that I once heard, which did make sense at the time.  The fact that Adam was alone does not mean that he was both male and female.  This would not be consistent with the biblical text.  The text suggests that Adam was a male human and that God created a female human from his flesh, which we will discuss shortly.  It is true that men and women are made of the same material, chemicals, and emotional capacity.  However, this doesn't mean that Adam was both male and female.

This teaching was derived from the etymology of the word alone.  It was said that it derived from an Old English phrase "all one".  Therefore, alone was simply the phrase "all one" put together making the word "alone."  However, the biblical text does not suggest this.  Also, the word alone used in the Bible goes back a lot farther then Old English.  Therefore, we have to look at the original Hebrew word to understand its meaning, which we previously did.

Also note in general that the man needed a helper that was compatible with him.  This would be the role of the woman, which we will soon see.  The world helper does not indicate a being of less standing then the man.  That is, the woman would not be inferior to the man because she was designed to be his helper.  The same word for helper is used in Psalm 33:20 and 115:9 for example.  If anything, we get the idea that man is helpless without the woman.

Genesis 2:19 through Genesis 2:20 (NKJV) ¹⁹Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. ²⁰So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

There are two ways to interpret this situation.  The first is that God brought the animals to Adam to see if Adam's solitude would be eliminated.  In other words, God wanted to see if the animals would cure his being alone.  The second interpretation is that this incidence was not designed to cure Adam's being alone.  It was simply another step in the creation implementation of God.  Even the animals have their place in the purpose of humans.  The second seems more reasonable when we consider that God knows what he is doing (omniscience) and that he therefore doesn't need to experiment for knowledge.

Genesis 2:21 through Genesis 2:22 (NKJV) ²¹And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. ²²Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

We notice the strange cloning process that God used to create the woman from the rib (or side) of the man.  The word rib comes from a Hebrew word, which means a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, that is, leaf); hence a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object).

I believe that it is very significant for God to create the woman from the man and that reason closely relates to the purpose and relationship of the man and the woman.  That reason can be found in Adam's response when God presented him with the woman.  Notice that the Bible does not say that Adam was presented the woman to see what he would call her.  She was simply presented to the man.

Now what if the woman was created from the dust of the earth as everything else was?  If that were so then there would be a reasonable argument for subordination.  The woman was taken from man because God intended for man and woman to be compatible and complimentary.  They were also interdependent.  Men need women and women need men.  The fact that the woman was formed from the man suggests that God intended for the male and female to have an intimate and bonding relationship and dependence on each other.

Genesis 2:23 through Genesis 2:24 (NKJV) ²³And Adam said:  "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."  ²⁴Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The phrase "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" means that Eve was made of the same substance as Adam (the male) was.  God created two persons out of one being.

Verse twenty-four applies God's design to marriage.  The husband is to leave his father and mother to be bound to his wife forming one flesh or one being.  See my study on marriage for much more information about this.

Notice that nothing is said about the woman's relationship to her parents.  This doesn't mean that she stays with her parents as the husband joins her.  It is more probable, according to Gilbert Bilezikian's "Beyond Sex Roles," that the woman was the stable entity in the process.  The man left his parents to cling to the bride.  Note that it was the husband that added his life to her life and not the other way around as it is practiced today.  God presented the woman to the man and the man clings to his wife.  This suggests that God intended for the two to come together to form one flesh.  Nothing is said about one dominating the other or of subordination.  Recall that both were to have dominion over God's creation.

Initial Findings From Creation

Our initial findings are that God created men and women and neither is superior to the other. In the beginning, God created the women to be a helper (companion) to the man since he was alone without her. She complimented him. Without her he was not complete and without him she had no purpose. So the man and woman were and are interdependent. We need each other in one way or another.

We find that God had a purpose for women and that purpose was not to be subject to man but to God.  God created both men and women (used loosely here to mean male and female) for his own purposes and in that purpose each had a specific calling.  The man was in the image of God in that he was created first.  The woman was also created in the image of God since she was formed from the same "stuff" as the man was.  Her being formed from the man suggests that both were to be interdependent on each other and not mutually exclusive, which would have been if she were created from the ground as the man was.

From the beginning we notice no hint of women inferiority or male supremacy.  The male and the female are equal in every way except for their purpose, which influences the way men and women respectively think and operate.  All of the teachings of male/female relationship must be viewed in light of what we learned from the creation narrative.  However, as we will discover in the next lesson, the God ordained relationship between men and women became corrupt because of sin and thus the fall.

The Fall

We have concluded from the biblical text that women are not inferior to men and consequently men are not superior to women.  We saw that there were no restrictions placed on women in God's purpose for humans.  Both the man and the woman had dominion.  Now of course there were differences between the man and the woman.  The biblical text suggests that the only difference was sexual.  The fact psychological differences between men and women at the time of creation are only speculative at best.  There is no mention of the woman being emotional and man being analytical.  The existence of this and other categories of the differences between men and women may very well be attributed to the "fall."

What were the consequences of the fall on the relationship between men and women?  Of course the fall had a great affect on our relationship with God, however, this study will focus on the man/woman relationship.  Let's investigate the circumstances of the fall to determine if it can shed more light on men/women relationships.

Genesis 3:1 (NKJV) ¹Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

Why did the serpent attack the woman instead of the man?  Was it because she was inferior, emotional, or naive?  If these were true then the serpent's attack of the women would not have made much sense and would be ripe with failure at the least.  This verse says that he was the most cunning beast in the field so we can assume that his attack on Eve was planned and calculated.  Consider the following scripture.

Mark 3:27 (NKJV) ²⁷No one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

The strong man is the one that can ultimately protect.  He is the one that has the power and authority over a household in this case.  In order to affect change in that strong man's house, you must first defeat the strong man.

How in the world would the serpent expect to affect the human race by going through the woman if Adam (the male) was indeed the superior being?  If the man were superior to the woman then it would have been a tactical error to approach the women.  That would be similar to someone attacking the mayor of a city in order to conquer the United States.  No.  You have to go for the highest office.  For practical and illustrative purposes we will say that the highest office would be the Presidency.  So if the man was indeed the superior being then the serpent should have attacked him to affect any change or inflict any damage.

Now these findings are consistent with our previous findings regarding the relationship between men and women and God's original purpose.  The man was not superior to the woman!  So again, why did the serpent attack the woman since she was not inferior to the man?  Did he just attack the first one he came into contact with?  That would also be a tactical error, which is to devise an attack based merely on chance of encounter.  Much planning and preparation goes into any campaign against an opponent.  Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the serpent went after the women on purpose and for a particular reason.  What was that reason?

Considering Mark 3:27 again, we see that the attack of the woman implied that she had authority and power to defeat him and to resist him.  This is also consistent with our previous findings on the man and woman's authority (dominion) over God's creation.  If the serpent could defeat the woman then he would affect change in all of God's creation because she, as well as the man, had ultimate dominion over that creation.  However, the same holds true for Adam (the man).  Why didn't he attack him instead of the women?  What was the reason for choosing to approach the woman instead of the man?

The answer seems to lie in the circumstances surrounding God's commandment to Adam (the man).  Consider the following scripture.

Genesis 2:15 through Genesis 2:17 (NKJV) ¹⁵Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ¹⁶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

The important thing to notice here is that the woman was not present when God gave this command.  Another thing to consider is that Adam had much more experience with God regarding the creation and God's command.  It is reasonable to assume that Adam told Eve what God said and the things that God did in the Garden of Eden before she was formed.  Therefore, Eve's experiences and knowledge of God's commandments would have come second-hand from Adam.  This isn't a bad thing in that Adam's testimony would have been reliable.

So again, why attack the woman?  Consider that the serpent would have had to have a planned attack to increase his chances of success.  Consider that the serpent would most likely want to defeat the most resistant of the two.  If he defeated the one that would put up the best fight then it would seem reasonable to think that the other would follow in defeat.

Genesis 3:2 through Genesis 3:4 (NKJV) ²And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; ³but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"  ⁴Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.

The serpent challenged the woman by trying to discredit God in her eyes.  However, she puts up a valiant fight.  She repeated God's commandment, as she knew it, just as Jesus defended himself against the Devil in Matthew 4.  Now there are some that say that Eve sinned by adding to God's commandment.  There are two problems with this.  First, as we said previously, Adam not God most likely told Eve the commandment.  Her addition does not change the command at all and the command would have stood just as well.  The second thing is that the Bible does not say that Eve committed a sin with her statement.  The first sin was the eating of the fruit.  So we cannot say that Eve sinned by adding to God's commandment.  Besides, if Adam did tell her what God said, which he most likely did, then he might have told Eve the command in such a way.  He might have highlighted the dangers of eating that fruit by even restricting the touching of it.  After all, Adam was the one with the personal revelation of God in these matters, not Eve.  With that said, it appears that the only disadvantage that the woman had in her encounter with the serpent was her knowledge and experience of God's word and of God respectively.  She was not as prepared as Adam was in her knowledge of God and His word.  Therefore, the serpent attacked her, the weak link in knowledge.  This doesn't mean that the woman was inferior as we already concluded.  It simply means that between Adam and Eve, that Eve was less prepared to deal with the onslaught of the serpent.  Since she and the man were in dominion, her fall would prove just as affective as the man's fall would.

Genesis 3:4 through Genesis 3:5 (NKJV) ⁴Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. ⁵For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Now the serpent begins to appeal to her sense of pride.  He tries to get her to perceive God as not being straight with her and Adam.  He twists what God said to get her to go against God.  He presents God as someone who is holding out on her.  The woman begins to consider what the serpent says.  That is when trouble started.

Genesis 3:6 through Genesis 3:7 (NKJV) ⁶So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. ⁷Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Now the woman looked at the tree with a new perspective.  Notice the parallel to Genesis 2:9; this tree was like the other trees. It was good for food. These words imply that this was the first time Eve considered disobeying God's command. After all, there was nothing in the tree that was poisonous or harmful, and it was desirable. The issue was one of obedience and disobedience to the Word of God.  Everything changed once she disobeyed God. (Note, however, that Rom. 5:12 speaks of the sin of Adam rather than the sin of Eve.) Because she did not die, she gave it to her husband. And he ate: Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. He did not even ask a question. He knew as well as she that the fruit was forbidden. Adam and Eve had now broken faith with the Lord, and the world was forever changed.

Also consider that the serpent in effect caused Eve to dispense with God.  She no longer needed God because she could be just like him.  The serpent tricked (deceived) the woman into relying on herself instead of the revelation that she had of God and his word.  She now determined what was right or wrong regardless of what God said.  Her mind was turned around and operating in a fashion that would lead her into self-exaltation.

Can we blame the woman for the fall, as Adam tried to do later?  No!  Notice that Adam was with her!  The Bible says nothing about Eve going clear across the garden and giving some of the fruit to him and he not knowing what it was.  She gave some of the fruit to Adam who was with her.  He watched the entire incidence with his wife and the serpent.  He watched his wife get tripped up by the serpent and by his cunning words.  He watched his wife fall!  At any moment, Adam could have intervened and use the authority that he had above all creatures.  Instead he watched his wife disobey God and he did the same thing.

The fact that Adam watched as Eve traveled down the road to THEIR death suggests that perhaps he was already thinking about that fruit.  Perhaps Adam had been contemplating eating the fruit.  Consider that this is only speculation on my part but it does fit with his inactivity.  He knew that the fruit was forbidden and he received the commandment directly from HIS CREATOR!  Why would he watch while his wife kill herself?  Why would he allow the serpent to trick her into doing something that he (and she) knew was forbidden?  Why didn't Adam use his supposedly superiority to jump in and save his wife and thus all of God's creation?  Perhaps he wanted to do the same thing his wife did.  Perhaps he wanted to eat the fruit as well.

Genesis 3:7 (NKJV) ⁷Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

All of a sudden they realized that they were naked because their eyes were opened.  They perceived things differently now.  Sin caused death to enter and now they saw things from a different perspective.  They were guilty of disobeying God.  They chose the road to travel and they would bear the consequences, as well as God's creation.  Remember that in order to plunder a strong man's house that you must first defeat the strong man.  This is exactly what the serpent did.  Well why didn't God intervene?  God had given the dominion of his creation to the man and the woman.  They were entrusted as stewards to watch over what God created.

It is important to notice the narrative here.  The Bible does not say that Eve ate and then went across the garden to give some of the forbidden fruit to her husband.  It doesn't say that the sin occurred when Adam sinned.  The narrative suggests that the results of the sin occurred when they both sinned collectively.  It is dangerous to suggest that the fall was due to either Adam or Eve.  The fall was due to the fact that THEY disobeyed God.  The man and the woman disobeyed God so that all of creation, over which they had dominion, was to suffer.  The fall was not the fault of Adam or Eve individually.  The fall was the fault of both collectively (as one unit).

The one thing that I definitely want to bring out is that the fall was not the woman's fault.  We cannot blame the great fall and subsequent consequences on the woman and hold the man as an innocent bystander.  He was just as guilty as she and she was just as guilty as he.  The fact is that they both were guilty of sin.  It wasn't the woman's fault nor was it the man's fault.  IT WAS THE FAULT OF BOTH!

We should also note that Eve's fall was not due to her inferiority, stupidity, or weakness due to sex.  Her fall was due to the fact that she tried to be like God, just as Lucifer had already attempted.  The serpent took Adam and Eve down the same road that caused him his demise.  Eve fell for the same reason that many fall today, namely PRIDE and the QUEST FOR POWER!  But wait!  It wasn't just Eve as I already said.  Adam fell for the very same reasons except he wasn't deceived.  He entered into sin premeditated.  He seemed to be looking for a way to do it and get away with it.  Perhaps that is another reason why the serpent went after Eve first.  He may have chosen Eve for his attack because Adam was already in the state that he wanted Eve to be in.  Adam was already contemplating sin but couldn't find a way to do it.  Regardless of the reasons, which are speculation at best, the fact is that they both sinned against God.

The Forbidden Fruit

I would like to digress a little bit here.  What was the forbidden fruit?  The fact of the matter is that we do not know.  People commonly associate the apple with the forbidden fruit, however this seems unlikely.  Others have claimed that the forbidden fruit was actually sexual intercourse.  This is very unlikely since they would not have been able to procreate without sexual intercourse.  Again, we do not know what the fruit was.  What we do know about the fruit is the following.

1. It could be eaten
2. It grew on a tree
3. It appeared to be good for food (after disobedience set in)
4. It was forbidden by God
5. We also know that eating this fruit would produce death.

It appears that the death-causing agent was not the fruit itself.  The death-causing agent was the act of eating the fruit, which means that it was an act of disobedience.

The Consequences of the Fall

Sin has entered Adam and Eve so now what happens?  Let's discuss the consequences of the fall of those things pertaining to women since that is the scope of this study.  A discussion of the full extent of the fall is left to a study of Genesis in general.

Genesis 3:8 through Genesis 3:9 (NKJV) ⁸And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.  ⁹Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

Now the man and the woman avoided God when they heard him coming.  They hid themselves because they knew they were guilty of disobeying God and they figured that God would know.  Surely God would know that they were naked as soon as He saw the man and the woman.  It is interesting that God called out to Adam and asked where he was.  We must assume that God knew where the man was since God is omnipresent.  Consider the following scripture relating to this point.

Psalm 139:7 through Psalm 139:12 (NKJV) ⁷ Where can I go from Your Spirit?  Or where can I flee from Your presence?  ⁸If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. ⁹If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,¹⁰Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me.  ¹¹If I say, "Surely the darkness shall fall on me," Even the night shall be light about me;¹² Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

There is not a place where the presence of the Lord cannot see.  Therefore, God's question to Adam had another purpose.  Another possibility is that the sin that the man and the woman committed separated them from the Lord.  The Lord's question wasn't that of information but more rhetorical in that He acknowledged their separation from Him.  Let's continue.

Genesis 3:10 through Genesis 3:12 (NKJV) ¹⁰So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." ¹¹And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" ¹²Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

Notice that God addresses Adam, the man and not the woman.  This further illustrates the close relationship that God had with Adam and the close experience that Adam had with God.  This doesn't mean that the women didn't experience God, however since Adam was first he had more personal contact and experience with the creator.  We should also note that the Bible doesn't say that this walk in the garden by God was a normal thing.  Perhaps God came down to walk because He knew what they did, namely sin.

Now Adam was afraid because he heard God and he hid himself.  Then Adam blamed the woman for his act of disobedience.  Though this highlights the consequences of sin, we can still see more of the purpose of woman in Adam's statement.  He said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me." The purpose of the woman was to be with the man (not given to the man!).

Genesis 3:13 (NKJV) ¹³And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"  The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

The woman didn't make up any excuses.  She said exactly what happened, namely that she was deceived.  Note also that she confessed that she did eat.  Throughout this entire ordeal we see that the man (or the woman) was not innocent of the sin.  He was wrong and it wasn't his wife's fault.  As we said previously, it is most likely that Adam was already contemplating disobeying God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  His wife just provided an opportunity by which he might get away with it.

Pain, Conception, and the Husband's Rule

Genesis 3:16 (NKJV) ¹⁶To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

Many validate the purported curse that is on woman, if indeed there is one, by using this particular verse.  Let's look at this verse in some detail to obtain a better understanding of what it really says.  First of all we have to keep in mind that the statements made here are the results of sin.  These should not be construed as God's purpose for the women.  God's purpose for the women is evident in the creation not the fall.

I would like to quote the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible because it shines much light on the proper way to interpret the first part of this verse.

Genesis 3:16 (YLT) ¹⁶Unto the woman He said, 'Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

It is commonly believed that the postmenstrual syndrome (PMS) that women experience is due to this "curse."  Some translations, as we have already seen, use the word pain in place of sorrow (the second one).  It is also believed that the pain that women experience during childbirth is also due to this "curse."  Is this true?  Well consider that the scripture does not literally say that.  Also, I believe that it is unlikely that God would reduce a major spiritual calamity to a mere physical pain.  However, it is evident that the verse does refer to physical pain though that is not the entire scope of that portion of scripture.  Let me digress just a bit here for a discussion of pain.

Pain and the Curse of Women

Pain is a normal part of life.  Pain is perceived a bad thing but in many cases it is very good for us.  Bodily pain is simply a signal from the body that something is wrong regardless of how obvious it is.  The more sensitive a portion of the body is then the more it will hurt if injured.  Sometimes we have to undergo medical procedures that are very painful and yet they provide something very good for us in the long run.  Pain in itself is not evil or bad except for the fact that we don't like the way it feels.  There is a tendency to equate a painless world with a godly world.  We live in a world where there is much pain and suffering.  However, much of the pain that we experience is a normal part of life.  We learn to deal with it and in some cases live with it.  The bottom line is that though pain is very undesirable in most cases, it many times provides a service of good or at best insignificance.

Now originally the LORD said that the man and the woman were blessed (Genesis 1:28).  He also told them to have dominion and multiply.  They were still blessed.  Now does blessing mean a lack of pain or discomfort?  We have a tendency to desire a utopia and anything else is not of God.  The Bible gave no indication of the physical condition of the woman regarding conception before the fall so perhaps it wasn't as pain-free as we assume.  This idea would lessen the likelihood that the "curse" introduced physical pain on the woman.  Also the phrase, "in pain you shall bring forth children" does not necessarily refer to mere physical pain.  Some translations use the word sorrow.

Now does the word pain always mean physical pain even today?  No!  Sometimes it simply means something that is labor intensive, much toil, or even sorrow.  For example you may say that you hurt, meaning that you are emotionally sad.  You may say that someone is a pain, which means that they are annoying you or pestering you.  So just because the word pain is used in some translations of Genesis 3:16 doesn't mean that the "curse" refers to mere physical pain, especially since the underlying Hebrew is ambiguous in this respect.

I believe that this is very consistent with the text and with the previous state of the man and woman.  It would seem reasonable to conclude that the fallen state of the woman, as well as the man, would mean that the consequences were more than just physical but encompassed their entire life.  They were spiritually separated from God so that the woman would have sorrow when bringing forth children because she no longer was together with God the father.  They chose whom to follow and they would have to bear the consequences of that choice.  She would bear children and go through the entire process of having children (nurturing, raising, etc.) with sorrow.  The more children she would have the more sorrow (pain) she would experience.

The Husband's Rule

Genesis 3:16 also says that the woman's desire will be towards her husband and that he would rule over her.  Does this mean that husbands have autonomy over their wives?  Does this mean that the man was to rule his wife and to have dominion over her?  Consider the following commentary from the Nelson Study Bible.

The word desire can also mean an attempt to forcibly take control.  So the husband will now have a tendency to dominate (take advantage of) the woman (his wife).  The word desire was at one time translated as "turning" from the ancient Hebrew text.  With this in mind, this scripture could be rendered, "You are turning away [from God] to your husband and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].

Now let's discuss what this all means.  Basically the common interpretation for this scripture is not accurate.  The woman will turn towards her husband since she turned away from God (because of sin).  The husband will therefore take advantage of this and usurp authority over her because of his now sinful condition.  They will both try to take control of the other and this is due because of the sin that entered them.

Men have used this verse through the centuries to justify their belief that women will have a strong sexual lust for their husband and that the husband is the ruler of the wife.  Remember that this was not the design of God and even if this were true after the fall, it doesn't mean that it was normative.  That is, God didn't command or establish that the man would have authority and dominate his wife and that the wife would have strong sexual lusts for her husband because of a sinful act.  As a result of the fall, the headship of God was replaced with self.  As a result of Adam and Eve wanting to be like gods, they would attempt to rule over each other.

Findings From the "Women's Curse"

What can we learn from this?  We see that it is not the nature of women or the command of God that the woman have sexual lusts for her husband.  It is also not true that the husband is the ruler of the wife.

We also learned that the pains that are associated with birth are not necessarily due to the women's curse.  The pains that the Bible speaks about does refer to some physical pain but it is a lot more than that.  It refers to the overall sorrow that would accompany the woman in the process of bringing a child into the world.  Also remember that God had not revoked his blessings on the man and the woman and also note that God never cursed Adam and Eve in the garden.  He merely stated the results of their action, which was disobedience.  Instead of heeding the voice of God, their creator, they decided to listen to self and disobey God.

There is no reason to believe that God would cause the woman to be inferior or subordinate to the man because of the fall.  He could just as well made the man subordinate since they both sinned.  The scripture seems to imply that they would be subject to each other since they turned away from God.

Findings from the Fall

We have to realize that sin caused God's perfect world to be tainted and perverted.  What was once a union between God and man has now become separation.  What was once a union in marriage has now become an institution with the development of man-made laws concerning marriage.  God's creation was corrupted.  Consider the following scripture.

Romans 8:20 through Romans 8:21 (NKJV) ²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; ²¹because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Now the corrupt creation and all therein became subject to the affects of sin.  This means that men/women relationships were also corrupt and by no means illustrated the original intent of man.  The fall caused the practice of the male dominated society, the ruling husband (patriarchal dominance), polygamy, concubines, double standards of adultery, and divorce.  The bottom line is that it became a man's world because of the corruption, due to the fall, induced by the original sin.  Though these were addressed in the Old Testament law, they were not God's original intent for men and women (for example see Matthew 19:8).

The bottom line then is that the concepts of the inferiority of women, the superiority of men, and the ruling husband are the results of sin and not the purpose or design of God.

Historic View of Women

Why do people hold women in such low esteem?  Why does the church consider women to be less than a man pertaining to leadership?  The answer to these questions is very important to our study because they will show us that God is not behind this sexual prejudice.  Though the men and the women have their own distinct purposes, we should not oppress women because of their gender.  Now I would like to present some information that would help you to understand the origin of the disdain for women.

Jewish Thought Towards Women

How could Jewish scholars interpret the scriptures in such a way as to be bias against women?  Perhaps there was an extra-scriptural belief in the inferiority of women that was incorporated into the interpretation of the scripture.  Perhaps the Hellenization process of Alexander the Great contributed to the Jewish disdain for women.

Philo, a Jewish scholar, attempted to harmonize the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers with the Old Testament scriptures, which included a disdain for women.  Josephus, a Jewish historian, viewed women with the same disdain, as did Philo.

In general, Jewish thought was influenced and in some instances transformed by Aristolian and Stoic Philosophies.  We will discuss this shortly.

Gentile converts also brought with them the same Greek philosophies pertaining to women.  They also used Paul's writings to confirm their beliefs of the status of women.  Some influential people in the Christian faith that interpreted the scriptures with the mindset of Greek philosophy were Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, and Thomas Aquinas.

Many scholars and theologians considered celibacy to be the way to personal holiness.  Sexuality was considered a snare of the devil to keep men from holiness.  The object of that sexuality from the man's perspective was the woman.  Therefore, women were considered a snare to men sent by the devil.  Imagine that!

The Greek Influence

The philosophers of Ancient Greece seem to be the originators of the Western world's formalized conviction that women are inferior to men.  Socrates solidified the Athenian disdain for women.  He commented that a society built upon common wife and children relationships would be better.  A man should not be tied down to one wife.

Greek women did not participate in much publicly.  Their lives were very restricted and confined primarily to the home.

Another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, believed that a male bee led a swarm of bees.  He reasoned that the male bee was more suited to command as in any creature including humans.  Aristotle said that a husband is to his wife as a soul is to the body.  The soul controls the actions of the arms and legs with intelligence and wisdom.  The wife is therefore nothing without the husband.

Church leaders centuries later interpreted Paul's letters according to Aristolian philosophy since they were a product of Greek culture and education.  Actually Paul was challenging this philosophy instead of supporting it, as we shall soon see.

Demonthenes, who was born a year before Aristotle, was regarded as the great Greek orator.  He analyzed the roles of women in Athens as follows.

1. Courtesans (basically a prostitute for the upper class and wealthy)-for men's pleasures
2. Prostitutes (young female slaves)-for daily use
3. Wives-to bring up legitimate children and to be faithful stewards in the household.

Greek marriages were arranged.  The women did not know her groom at the wedding and was usually married at a young age.  A dowry was paid for the privilege to marry one's daughter.  The Jewish also used this type of arrangement in the Old Testament.  Wives received no education except for cooking, spinning (for garments), and how to be modest and quiet.

Women of Athens Greece never went out alone, never shared meals with men (even their husbands), and never entered into the life of the general community.  Their lives were basically confined to their homes and even there it was restricted.  She lived a secluded, retired, and restricted life.

The Stoics believed that women were a distraction to men in the pursuit of wisdom.  They also promoted asceticism (plainness) and celibacy, which supported their belief about women.  The Stoic philosophy of celibacy made its way into Christian thought.  It was believed that a celibate life would lead to holiness.  So men and women would forgo sexual intimacy and marriage for the sake of spiritual development and holiness.  Thus we have the concept of the monastery.

Summary

There are two primary thoughts pertaining to women.  These are the Athenian and Stoic thoughts.  They are summarized below.

1. Athenian thought:  Women are inferior to men.  Therefore, they are to be commanded by men and used for pleasure.  They have no other purpose but to obey and provide pleasure to men.
2. Stoic thought:  Women are a distraction to men and should be avoided in order to pursue the qualities that would make men superior.

These two views of the philosophy concerning women are the bases for the interpretations of Paul's writings regarding women and marriage.  These philosophies set the stage for how the scriptures would be interpreted by the Hellenized mind at the beginning of Christianity in the first century and beyond.

The Spread of the Greek Philosophy

Not all nations or people shared in the Athenian and Stoic view of women.  Even some Greeks did not believe in those views of women.  For example, the women of Sparta had considerable freedom and political responsibilities.  As a matter of fact, at one time the women of Sparta owned two thirds of the land.

Egyptian women lived in an equalitarian society.  Egyptian women had the same legal rights as men and participated in politics.  Egyptians also had equalitarian marriages, that is, the husband and wife had equal rights and privileges.  Egyptian women had a much more liberal life compared with Greek women.  For example, Egyptian women could sit on a local tribunal, inherit and bequeath property, engage in real estate transactions, secure a loan with her own property, witness legal documents, act on her own legal matters, buy, sell, or free slaves, and adopt children.

The reason that these ideals towards women did not spread is because neither Sparta nor Egypt offered any philosophical heritage to the world as Greece did.  Therefore, their respective philosophies about women remained confined to their respective locations, that is, it remained local.

Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great is considered to be one of the most brilliant military leaders of all time.  He conquered the entire known world in the third century B.C.  He was trained as a student of Aristotle and was influenced and impressed with the Greek culture.  One of his greatest legacies is the spread of the Greek culture to all of the lands that he conquered.  That process is called Hellenization.  Alexander's successors continued the Hellenization process after his death at the young age of thirty-three.

Thought on Women During Paul's Time

The thought of women in Rome during Paul's time were similar to those in Athens, particularly the Stoics.  Sons were favored over daughters.  The women in Rome did have more freedom than those in Athens, however.

Interpretation of Adam and Eve and the Fall

The basic interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve and the fall during Paul's time was as follows:  Eve fell for the smooth talking serpent.  As a result she would have pain in child bearing and have an altered relationship with her husband.  The serpent waited for the women because she was morally weak and easily led astray.

Even though there were many examples of strong women in the Scriptures such as Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Deborah, Jael, and Judith, the rabbis of Judaism for the most part devalued women in their teachings.  Some rabbis did argue for equality, however.

One of the primary scriptures that influenced the views of the relationship between a husband and wife is Deuteronomy 5:21.  I will quote it here.

Deuteronomy 5:21 (NKJV) ²¹'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

Since coveting the wife was listed along with other possessions of the husband, then it was reasoned that the wife must be a possession of the husband as well.  That is, the wife was a piece of property.  The thought of the women being inferior must have existed before the rabbis interpreted this scripture.  As a matter of fact, this scripture was interpreted in such a way because of their mindset concerning women.  Women were therefore regarded as objects or possessions of their husbands or their fathers if they weren't married.

A Rabbi might not speak to his own daughter or sister in public.  Some Pharisees were referred to as the bruised or bleeding ones.  This was because they would close their eyes whenever they saw a woman in the street, which resulted in them walking into walls and houses.

Every Jewish male thanked God in a recital each morning for not making him a gentile, woman or boor.  As I said before, Jewish women were deprived of education, especially of the law (Torah).

Paul's Task

Paul envisioned a world in which all people would be equal citizens in God's Kingdom regardless of nationality, sex, or financial status.

Galatians 3:28 (NKJV) ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Paul's task was to convert the Hellenized mind to Christian thinking.  The people had to be transformed by the renewing of their minds in order to accept the New Testament standard for equality, even with women.

Summary

We see that men oppressed women during ancient times and still in some areas of the world today.  They were not educated and did not participate in public life.  They lived a restricted and secluded life.  To make matters worse, men blamed them for causing sin and for being a distraction to the pursuit of holiness.  In general, it was a man's world during the time of Paul.  Paul, on the other hand, was not promoting the general mindset about women at the time.  He was actually trying to promote the equality of all people regardless of race, sex, or nationality.

Women and Hair Covering

Now we have an idea of the historical aspects of women during Old and New Testament times.  Now let's tackle some beliefs about women that are still taught today.  Let's tackle the idea of women and head coverings.  We will use 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 for this study.

Many churches hold that women are supposed to have their heads covered because of Paul's instruction in this passage of scripture.  Is that true?  Is there a Christian Doctrine that demands that women wear hats or other head coverings in church?

Customs and Culture

Women's hair was a common object of lust in antiquity (ancient times) and in much of the eastern Mediterranean.  Women were expected to cover their hair and not to cover their hair was perceived as provoking male lust as a bathing suit is thought to provoke it in some cultures today.  Hair covering was a normal cultural practice in Jewish Palestine.  Other cultures extended this practice to face veils.  However, upper-class women, along with other Greek women that did not necessarily follow Jewish customs, did not practice these cultural norms of the Jews.  Instead they adorned their hair with fashionable hairstyles thus showing off.  Consider the following as an illustration of the severity of this practice.  A woman attending a church meeting with her hair glamorously adorned in ancient Palestine would have a similar affect as if a woman attending a church service today was wearing a swimsuit.  Yes, men's heads would turn.

By declaring that in Christ there are no distinctions of sex, race, or social standing (Galatians 3:28), Paul had raised women from their degraded position (especially in the Middle East). But some Corinthian women had then discarded the customary dress and behavior of women in Greek culture. In Corinth, only the prostitutes went without veils, so for a woman not to wear a veil was a sign of loose morals or low character.

Paul is dealing with a culture class here more than a man-woman relationship.  The culture class made it necessary to resolve the problem of sexual propriety since the Jews considered such adorning as sexually explicit while the upper-class women were simply showing off their hairstyles and at the same time attracting the men.

Paul presents a series of arguments that addresses the cultures in question.  Note that these arguments will not work in every culture because other cultures will have different practices.  Paul's arguments surely do not concern woman today since the cultures are very different.  Paul is again dealing with a cultural issue and not a religious or doctrinal issue.  This is very important to understand else we might misinterpret Paul's instruction and cause women to be unnecessarily, unbiblical, and unjustifiably bound or suppressed.

Interpreting the Scripture

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NCV) ³But I want you to understand this: The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Christ is not the head merely of husbands, but of the entire church, his body, male and female (Ephesians. 5:22-24). Wives as well as husbands are responsible to Christ, submitting to him and to one another. However, Paul emphasizes particularly that Christ is the head of every man. The husband has a special responsibility before God not only for himself, but also for his wife and children, and he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians. 5:23, 25). The relationship between man and woman is compared to the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Scripture teaches that while Christ was fully God, equal with the Father (Philippians 2:5; Colossians 2:9, 10), he willingly submitted himself to the Father (John 8:28, 29; 14:28, 31). In the same way, even though man and woman are equal before God in Christ, a wife must willingly submit to her husband as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:24; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5, 6).  However, this submission in no way implies inferiority of the wife or superiority of the husband.

Paul uses the word head to mean the literal head and to mean authority.  We should also consider that women held a subordinate role in the Jewish culture (as well as others) at this time.  Again, this is not a spiritual or religious issue being addressed.  Paul is merely dealing with the cultural practices at the time, which influences those things that are considered appropriate or taboo.  In ancient Palestine the women were expected to have their heads covered and in some instances their faces veiled.  Not doing so was a direct contempt for the social and cultural norms and therefore a direct defiance of the "proper order of things."

Paul states the hierarchy that existed at the time by using the example of our relationship with Christ.  He said that Christ is the authority of every man and that the man is the authority over every woman.  He also states in his argument that the head of Christ is God.  Therefore the order of authority is God, Christ, man, and then woman.

Head primarily means "authority" when used in the context of human relationships. But the Greek word for head can also mean "source" or "origin" in some cases. The relationship between men and women does not involve inferiority, since correspondingly Christ is not inferior to God the Father. Submission does not indicate inferiority, but subordination. Just as Christ and God are equally divine, men and women are equal beings. But just as Jesus and God the Father have different roles in God's plan of salvation, so men and women are given different roles.

Some interpret Paul to mean that head means the source.  Therefore, God is the source of Christ, Christ is the source of man, and man is the source of woman.  This also does not fit properly with the biblical text since it would violate our understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father and that God is the source of everything, even the woman.  Again, we see that this argument can only work if we apply it to culture and not universal relationships between men and women.  The point is that in this Jewish culture women were under the authority of men.  They were not educated as men were and they typically didn't hold high positions as men did.

I should also point out that Paul's arguments seem to apply to husband wife relationships and not basic male female relationships.  That is, he is not implying that men have authority over women, rather that husbands (in this culture) have authority over the wives.

1 Corinthians 11:4 (NCV) ⁴Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame to his head.

Having his head covered can refer to a hat or a veil.  It is impossible to decide whether Head here refers to the man's physical head or to Christ, the man's authoritative head.  Either interpretation is possible.  We can take it as fact for this culture that a man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head (probably authority).

It was the Greek custom for men to worship with their heads uncovered. The principal part of his body was the head.  Since a covered head was in the Greek culture a sign of subjection to men, a man would dishonor himself by wearing a veil or hat.

1 Corinthians 11:5 through 1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV) ⁵But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head 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.

Again we visit the cultural practices.  If a woman has her head uncovered in public then she brings shame to her head (this could mean the husband or her physical head).  It would be a disaster if a women had her head shaved (like a man's).  Having her head uncovered in public (worship) was just as degrading and disastrous as not having hair or cutting it short, which they would not have done.

Examples of women who participated publicly in the worship services or had positions of leadership are Anna the prophetess; Priscilla, who worked along with Paul and her husband Aquila and instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26); Phoebe (Romans 16:1, 2); and the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). See also Acts 2:18. Paul has more to say about the conduct of women in the public meetings in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12.  Since the veil was a sign of modesty and chastity, a woman who removed her veil was publicly declaring independence from her husband, and rejection of his claims on her. Compare the Jewish custom of uncovering the head of a wife suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:18).

Among the Jews and Greeks, long hair was a woman's glory, while a shaved head was a punishment for adultery. Paul was saying to the Corinthian women, "You are carelessly flouting the customs of your society, with no concern for the impression of loose character you are giving. If you are going without veils, you might as well be consistent and have your heads shaved, which is considered even more disgraceful." Paul was showing them the impropriety of their behavior by carrying the matter a step further to something they would never consider doing.

Again, I must continue to say that Paul is dealing with cultural practices, which are not biblically derived.  For example, a Nazarite was not allowed to shave his head (Numbers 6:5), which is an exception to what Paul is saying here regarding men and short hair.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (NKJV) ⁷For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

Paul here begins an argument from the order of creation. He cannot be denying that women are also the image of God (Genesis 1:27 plainly states that both male and female were created in God's image). Perhaps he means that women's uncovered heads are drawing men's attention to humanity instead of to God; as one would say today, they were turning men's heads.  However, we should keep in mind that Paul is arguing from a cultural perspective and not a theological one.  If you don't remember that very important point then you are likely to misinterpret what he is saying and apply his words to Christian doctrine, which it was not intended.

1 Corinthians 11:8 through 1 Corinthians 11:9 (NKJV) ⁸For man is not from woman, but woman from man. ⁹Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

According to Genesis 2:18 God created woman distinct from man partly so that man would no longer be alone.  The phrase translated "helper suitable" praises woman's strength rather than subordinates her. The word "helper" is used more often of God than of anyone else in the *Old Testament.  The word "suitable" means "corresponding" or "appropriate to," as an equal in contrast to the animals. Women were therefore created because man needed her strength, not (as some have wrongly interpreted this verse) to be his servant.

The woman was taken from the side of the man (see Gen. 2:21). The term "woman for the man" is Paul's way of stating the concept of the "helper" in Gen. 2:20. This does not mean the women are inferior to men.  It refers only to the purposes of God for man and woman in the creative order.

Man was created in the image or likeness of God; he is a small, finite reflection of God's infinite glory (Gen. 1:26, 27; James 3:9).  Jesus, born as a man, was the perfect likeness of God.  He revealed God's glory not through a dim and imperfect reflection, but as the very Word, God's own self-revelation (John 1:14; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).  Notice that the woman is not said to be the image of man, since both male and female were created in the image of God. However, as Paul goes on to note, the woman was formed out of the man and although created directly by God, she derived existence and glory from God through man.

Women were an integral part of God's total plan for the creation, which he pronounced "very good." But God did create Adam first, and Genesis emphasizes his incompleteness, his need for someone suited to his needs, and a companion.  Woman was created to supply the lack of man (Genesis. 2:18). Although both man and woman were created equally in God's image, to glorify God and have dominion over the earth, woman was created under the headship of man. In the Greek culture, a woman's head covering was a sign of her submission to her husband's authority.

1 Corinthians 11:10 (NKJV) ¹⁰For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Evidently God's angels were present at the meeting of the church and actually learn of God's work of grace through the lives and worship of God's people (see Eph. 3:10).  The symbol of authority might be a symbol of the woman's authority to prophesy in the new church age, which was inaugurated with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (verse 5). It also might refer to a symbol of the man's authority over the woman (verse 3).

However, The meaning of this phrase is unclear, but perhaps just as man is ranked "a little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5), so woman should take her place in submission to man. The angels, present at the church meetings, would respect this sign of submission.

1 Corinthians 11:11 through 1 Corinthians 11:12 (NKJV) ¹¹Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. ¹²For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Men and women need each other, and as creatures of God, both depend on Him. Neither man nor woman can have any claim to special status other than what God has purposed for them as their Creator.  Paul qualifies his preceding argument from creation (11:7-10).  He wants to prove his case about head coverings, but nothing more. Women and men are mutually interdependent (see also 1 Corinthians 7:2-5).

1 Corinthians 11:13 through 1 Corinthians 11:15 (NKJV) ¹³Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴Does not 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.

Ancient writers, especially Stoic philosophers, liked to make arguments from nature. Nature taught them, they said, that only men could grow beards; women's hair naturally seemed to grow longer than men's. Like all urban dwellers, Paul is well aware of exceptions to the rule (barbarians, philosophers and heroes of the epic past, as well as biblical Nazarites); but the "nature" argument could appeal to the general order of creation as his readers experienced it.

Paul compares the natural head covering of hair with the artificial covering of a kerchief or veil. Since the women took pride in their covering of hair, they ought to be willing to wear the additional covering expected by society. A man customarily wore his hair short, except for Nazarites, who grew their hair long as a sign of their consecration to God (Num. 6:5).

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NKJV) ¹⁶But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Paul reserves one final argument for those unpersuaded by his former points. One philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom-"that's just not the way it's done."

The Corinthians were apparently fond of arguing, each claiming to have the last word or the ultimate answer (1 Corinthians 8:1). The Apostles did not have a custom regarding women praying with their heads uncovered.  Paul closed his argument by appealing to the universal custom of the churches. While custom does not determine correct doctrine (since doctrine has been authoritatively revealed in Scripture), custom is a helpful guide in practical questions of what is proper or appropriate in a particular setting. This phrase, then, supports the conclusion that the specific instructions regarding head coverings depend on cultural expectations and would not always apply. Paul's teaching, however, is based on underlying principles that should always be observed.  These underlying principles include the customs and traditions of your area that are not Christian doctrine.  For example, in some customs certain gestures or words are considered taboo while in others they are not.  It would be appropriate to consider those taboo things when dealing with the people of that culture.

Findings Concerning Head Coverings

The teaching of a woman's head covering has nothing to do with Christian doctrine except for the underlying principle of considering custom influences and traditions, i.e., don't offend people with your liberty.  Paul's teaching is purely based on custom and nothing else.  The direct teaching does not apply to women today or for that matter to all women even at the time Paul wrote it.  We should take away from this teaching the importance of recognizing the customs and traditions of an area when we deal with its people and the liberty that we have in Christ.

One important thing to note about Paul's instruction here is that it was not something that he was commanding for all Christian women, nor could he.  He simply used reasoning based on Christian values to deal with a situation that developed in the Corinthian church.  This therefore does not mean that all Christian women are to have their heads covered.

Women's Dress

One of the most common "laws" in the church community is that women are not allowed to wear pants or makeup in church.  This church law is derived from 1 Timothy 2:8-10 along with other such scriptures.  Let's examine this church law now to see if it is really a Christian doctrine to be followed by all women.  I will quote the scripture for convenience.

1 Timothy 2:8 through 1 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV) ⁸I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; ⁹in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

It appears that Paul is addressing two problems here: The men and the women of the church.  The men seem to have been quarreling with each other or possibly with the women too.  The word doubting should be understood as meaning discussion, debate or dispute.

The women seem to have had a problem with propriety in public worship, that is, seeking to turn others' heads. Most Jewish teachers allowed wives to adorn themselves for their husbands, but both Jewish and Greco-Roman moralists ridiculed women who decked themselves out to turn other men's eyes. Jewish writings warn especially of the sexual temptation involved in such adornments.  Greco-Roman writers also condemn wealthy women who show off their costly array. Hair was sometimes braided with gold, which Paul might have in view here.  Men were especially attracted by women's decorated hair. Like most other writers who condemned such gaudiness, Paul should be understood as attacking excess, not as ruling against all adornment.

Greco-Roman moralists often stressed that it was inward adornment rather than outward adornment that would please a good husband and Paul concurs. See also 1 Peter 3:3-4.

Paul is not stating that women should not wear pants or even that all Christian women should refrain from wearing certain clothes to public worship except those that would attract attention to themselves.  For example, we could apply this today by saying that women shouldn't wear mini skirts or tight jeans to church if at all possible.

The specifics Paul mentioned (braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes) are not wrong in themselves, but become inappropriate when they indicate misplaced values (see 1 Peter 3:3). In the Ephesian church these styles may have been associated with the local temple prostitutes or other undesirable entities. Though the specifics are not applicable for all times, the principle of Paul's instructions are applicable for all time.  Worship time is not a time for show or excess.  The purpose of coming together is to worship God and have instruction in the faith and not to show off the new clothing, hair designs, etc.

Pants

Many churches have a rule that women are not supposed to wear pants to church.  I recall that one reason for this is another rule that says that women shouldn't wear men's clothing.  Let's look at pants to see if this is really true or even biblical.

First of all, I have found no such rule in the New Testament.  However, the Old Testament does contain such a restriction, or seemingly so at first glance.

Deuteronomy 22:5 (NKJV) ⁵"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Many people use this verse to justify their belief of forbidding women to wear pants.  They say that pants are men's clothes and therefore if women wore pants then they would be breaking this commandment.  Keep in mind that the commandment includes men not putting on women's clothing as well.  We will discuss that aspect later.  Let's examine this verse more closely with the use of various commentary that I have, which include the Believer's Study Bible, New Commentary on the Whole Bible, Nelson Study Bible, and Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Old Testament.

·        Slacks? This verse has sometimes been taken to rule out the wearing of slacks by women. Hardly. In biblical times both men and women wore loose-fitting robes-but designed differently for each of the sexes. The point of the verse is that we are not to confuse the sexes; each person is to gladly identify himself or herself as a man or woman. Each is to take pride in the person he or she is.

·        The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man-øáâ éìë  keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word øáâ  geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armor is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armor before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

·        This verse is not primarily a reference to principles of fashion, as one clearly notes in the final clause. Rather this refers to the practice of transvestitism, i.e., a deviant sexual behavior that is exhibited in the adoption of dress and behavior unnatural for one's own sex. The danger, perhaps, lies in its close association with homosexuality (cf. Lev 18:22 and 20:13, where the same word "abomination" occurs; see also Rom 1:24, note) and in the fact that such practices were often associated with the worship of pagan deities. God considers sacred the distinction of the sexes, as shown in His creative design of man and woman, who, though both in the image of God, are also uniquely and differently designed (cf. Gen 1:27). Any attempt to erase that distinction is labeled an "abomination."

·        Cross-dressing was forbidden by God in ancient Israel. In the ancient Middle East, dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex was a magical practice intended to bring harm to people. For example, a transvestite male would predict that the soldiers of another army would be as weak as females.

A note from the American Heritage Dictionary states:

"It would seem unlikely that the name of a 4th-century Roman Catholic saint should be the ultimate source of a word for a modern article of clothing commonly worn by both men and women. Pants, however, can be traced back to Pantaleon, the patron saint of Venice. He became so closely associated with the inhabitants of that city that the Venetians became popularly known as Pantaloni.  Consequently, among the commedia dell'arte's stock characters the representative Venetian (a stereotypically wealthy but miserly merchant) was called Pantalone.  His name in French, Pantalon, was borrowed into English (first recorded around 1590). During the middle of the 17th century the French came to identify him with one particular style of trousers, and this same style became known as pantaloons in English. Pantaloons was later applied to another style of trousers that came into fashion toward the end of the 18th century, tight-fitting garments that had begun to replace knee breeches. After that pantaloon was used to refer to trousers in general. The last step in the development of the word pants met with some resistance. This abbreviation of pantaloon was considered vulgar and, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, " a word not made for gentlemen, but ' gents.'" First found in the writings of Edgar Allan Poe in 1840, pants has replaced the " gentleman's word " in English and has lost all obvious connection to Saint Pantaleon."

The following are yet more facts about the history of pants (trousers).

• In Asia both women and men have always worn pants for warmth, comfort, and convenience. In Rome and Greece women and men wore tunics.
• In the fourth century, women in the Western world wore pants, which they adapted from the Persians. At that time, pants were considered unmanly.
• By the Middle Ages in Europe women were wearing dresses and men were wearing breeches.
• After the French Revolution, men took off their high heels, silk stockings, and wigs and began wearing trousers.
• In the nineteenth century women put on trousers to ride horses, but they hid them by wearing full skirts on top.
• All trousers were pull-ons until the nineteenth century, when front closures using buttons were introduced.
• Jeans were the first trousers to put women and men on equal terms.
• Until 1970 it was not fashionable and sometimes against the law to wear pants in offices, classrooms, and restaurants in the U.S.

Of even more importance in understanding Deuteronomy 22:5 is to know the type of clothing that men and women wore.  It just so happened that Hebrew men and women wore very similar clothes.  They both wore tunics and cloaks.  However, there were differences in the details of the design.  For example, men's tunics were normally short and colored and the women's tunics were ankle-length and blue with embroidered edges on the V-neck.  The tunic, as you may have deduced, is more akin to a dress then a pair of pants.  Therefore, with the aforementioned logic of women not permitted to wear pants, we would have to exclude women from wearing the dress since men wore "dresses" at the time of this scripture and in Bible times in general.

Findings of Women and Pants

First of all we find that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a law that prohibits women from wearing pants.  To interpret any scripture that deals with culture, customs, or social events at a particular time and apply them directly and literally to current times is very dangerous and will mostly lead to the wrong application or interpretation of that scripture.  Such is the case here.

The primary assumption or dogma is that pants are men's clothing.  It is also assumed that Deuteronomy 22:5 is merely referring to cross-dressing.  Since both of these assumptions are incorrect, it follows that the interpretation of this scripture using those assumptions would also be incorrect, which is the case here.  I have always preached that we should understand some background information to help us better understand and interpret a passage of scripture.  Without that background information, we are likely to apply 20^th century thinking to something that happened thousands of years ago, which would prove to be disastrous.

Deuteronomy 22:5 might also refer to the practices involving transvestitism, which is believed to be part of a pagan ritual or magical ritual.  It is also believed that this practices was also related to homosexuality, which was forbidden and dealt with very harshly.

Therefore, we can confidently say that women are not forbidden from wearing pants by an Old Testament law or a New Testament doctrine.  We also found that pants are not intrinsically men's clothing.  It all depends on the region of the world that you live in.  In some cultures, women wear pants and in others men wear pants, and in yet others men and women wear pants.

Sexualism Argument

I have discovered another argument for the prohibition of women wearing pants.  It was argued that women wearing pants would generate unnecessary attraction by men because of a number of things.  It was argued that pants would reveal the shape of the women, among other things (the frontal "V") whereas a dress would not.  This, it was argued, violated the teachings of modest dress in the New Testament.

This argument is very weak and does not hold up very well to even a superficial scrutiny.  Wearing a dress does not preclude a man from looking at a women and becoming stimulated.  There are many types of dresses that will show off a women's figure just as well and even more than a pair of pants.  This is especially true if the women's legs are showing.  Furthermore, speaking from the perspective of a man, a dress will not necessarily keep a man from being stimulated by a woman.  Sometimes he is stimulated by her perfume, general looks, size, hairstyle, and the list goes on.  Furthermore, even a baggy pair of pants may be stimulating when the imagination is used.  I don't want to get too far into this segment but suffice it for me to say that arguing that women should not wear pants in order to not be sexually stimulating to men is simply very weak.

If you would look at the converse of this argument you would see how quickly it breaks down.  What if a man is wearing a tight pair of jeans or a tight fitting suit?  Wouldn't he be just as stimulating to some women?  Therefore, we could just as well argue that the man should not wear pants and that he too should wear a dress.  After all, there is no law that says a man should not wear a dress specifically!  Of course I am being ridiculous, however this argument is just as ridiculous and very superficial.  It is one of those church rules that is based on dogmatic logic instead of facts and truth.

Men Wearing Women's Clothing

What about the other part of Deuteronomy 22:5, which is that men shouldn't wear women's clothing?  Now a lot of trouble arises with the logic of those that say women shouldn't wear pants because they are men's clothing.  We said that Europeans at one time wore stockings, wigs, and even skirts (called kilts).  Those were men's clothing so women shouldn't wear stockings, wigs, or skirts!  Now we have a problem as you can see.  Of course if you go to different parts of the world you will find that men and women wear different types of clothes.  So you can't pinpoint an article of clothing and say it is a man's clothing or a woman's clothing.

Let's look at an illustration.  Is a hat man or woman's clothing?  What about gloves?  Are socks man's or woman's clothing?  What about robes-are they men or women's clothing?  Perhaps you see where I am going.  The fact is that there are men's hats and women's hats.  There are men's gloves and women's gloves.  There are men's coats, sweaters, shirts, shoes, and watches.  There are also women's coats, sweaters, shirts (blouses), shoes, and watches.  Women's clothing is made differently then men's clothing.  Likewise, men's pants are made differently then women's pants.  A pair of women's pants simply would not fit right on a man and vice versa.

Findings of Women's Dress

We have found that there is no restriction on particular clothing that women can wear except for respectability.  For example, a woman shouldn't wear short skirts to church or possibly in public as well.  There is definitely no Christian doctrine that forbids a woman from wearing pants.  The principle here is that women shouldn't wear clothes that will attract too much attention to themselves, especially in church services.  We also have to consider the culture and the customs of the people that are around us.  The same thing applies to men as well.

Women (as well as men) should dress appropriately.  What is appropriate depends on the environment that is in question.  A women's dress should be indeed women's dress.  The Bible seems to discourage cross-dressing in an effort to switch gender identities.  The bottom line is that women should dress modestly in worship so as not to draw too much attention to them.  I should also mention that the same applies to men.

Women Teachers and Authority Over Men

Let's now turn our attention to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Let me quote it here for convenience.

1 Timothy 2:11 through 1 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) ¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. ¹³For Adam was first formed, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ¹⁵Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Does Paul restrict the teaching ministry of women? Does Paul restrict the authority of women in the church? Many have interpreted this scripture as a restriction on the teaching ministry of women in the church in that women cannot teach men (since it is held that men have authority over the women). It is also believed that Paul restricts women from having authority over men. Are these indeed the case? Paul even seems to give a reason from scripture citing the creation. Before we tackle these questions, I would like to give some background information that will help us understand what was going on in the Ephesian church.

Basic Overview

Before we examine the background of this scripture from historical sources, let's first just think about what is being said first and if our findings later will be consistent with this initial finding.

Let's look at the idea of a Christian teacher and one in authority in the Christian community.  For most Christians, the one in authority is usually the pastor so let's focus our attention primarily on that.  Since most Christians do not read and study their Bible, it becomes important for them to establish a primary source for Christian knowledge.  This person is usually the pastor or a favorite TV evangelist.  Whatever the pastor or minister says is considered to be from God and therefore "law."  For many church-going Christians, the pastor is the man in authority and whatever he says goes.  He is the spokesman of God to the congregation.  He has authority over the lives of the Congregation.

What is a teacher?  A teacher is someone who presents information and expounds on it in an attempt to help you understand the presented information.  Where does the teacher get his or her information?  The Christian teacher uses the same resource that is available to everyone, namely the Holy Bible.  He or she will also use other resources such as historical, cultural, commentary, etc. to help him or her interpret the scriptures in as close to the original context as possible.  Therefore, you don't have to do as much first level research since the teacher has done so much research and possibly investment in research material.  So a teacher is one that helps you to understand the scriptures by presenting information in an appropriate way to facilitate understanding.

A pastor is a shepherd.  The pastor is really a servant to the people.  He is there to minister to the people, in addition to overseeing the vision that God has given him.  This vision may take the form of a church, ministry, school, or community organization.  However, we only call the overseer of a church the pastor.  The pastor (or bishop) should be able to teach the doctrine of the Christian faith along with other criteria given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3.

The person that has authority over us in the things pertaining to Christ is really the one that is your discipler (Christian mentor).  This is the person that led you to Christ and will answer questions and help steer you on your way to living a life in Christ.  This could be anyone who is versed with the Gospel of Christ and the Christian Way.

Consider the following.  The power in the Gospel is not from the one that presents it.  The power in the Gospel is the Holy Spirit.  A woman can get the same results as a man when presenting the Gospel to someone because the power of the Gospel is not in the individual.  Yes there is usefulness for apologetics to some people but that is not specific to gender since anyone can learn how to reason with people to get them over their hindrances to accepting the Gospel.  The Holy Spirit is active in these situations as well though.

Now if we put these things together we can come up with the following reasonable conclusions.

1. The effectiveness of teaching or preaching the Gospel is not gender specific
2. Pastors are not the authority over a person's life.
3. Pastors are not authority figures in true Christianity
4. The effectiveness of the preaching of the Gospel is not gender specific since the Holy Spirit is the one affecting change in a receptive heart.

Therefore, a preliminary finding just from these considerations is that the gender of a teacher, pastor, or other ministry leaders is insignificant as far as Christian doctrine is concerned.  There are appropriate situations to consider.  For example, a leader for a men's group in the church should be a man.  A leader for a women's ministry should be a women.  However, what about the pastor over the entire congregation?  Where does the significance of gender come into affect? We will investigate these in another study.  However, keep these preliminary findings in mind and see how they compare to later findings.

Background

It is very important to understand that prior to the Christian worship meetings that men and women typically did not mingle in worship meetings or in public in many cases. Men were separated from women in antiquity. Why were they separated? Why did the women not mix with men during worship meetings? The answer lies in association.

Cultic (religious) prostitution was a major reason for separating the sexes. Women in worship gatherings were associated with these cultic prostitutions. Some examples of cultic prostitution are given below.

• Temple prostitutes in Babylon
• Holy weddings of the Gnostics
• Corinth, during Paul's time, was famous for religious prostitution
• Judaism had temple prostitutes (1 Samuel 2:22). See also 1 Kings 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 14:21‑24.

Because of these associations, contact between men and women in public was restricted. The women were eventually allowed in Jewish worship but they remained separated and out of site (of the men). Therefore, Paul's allowance of women to be present and participate in an authoritative manner in worship was a very radical change.

The traditional view of women during Paul's time and prior was that women were a distraction to men in their pursuit for holiness (from Stoic philosophy). This thought is derived from an interpretation of the creation account. It was thought that the woman was an afterthought of God and that she was therefore inferior to the man that God had intended to create. Of course this cannot be the case because we know that God created male and female in his image. We discussed this earlier in this study.

Now the women were involved with worship but were ignorant of the Christian faith and the law. This made them a major gateway for heresy to spread. In the same way that it is believed that Eve was deceived because of her lack of knowledge and experience with God (compared to Adam), the women of Ephesus were deceived by false teachers because of their lack of knowledge of the Christian faith and the law.

Analysis

Now let's try to interpret the scripture in its proper context as best we can. Let me remind you that God is not a respecter of persons. That is, God does not show favoritism. Jesus Christ gave no indication whatsoever that women were somehow restricted in the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. Cultural and local customs are usually taken into consideration in any organizational structure at any given location and at any given time. We saw this in our discussion of women and head coverings.

Now back to our subject scripture (1 Timothy 2:11-15).  The word "silence" refers to a student that sits quietly in submission while learning from the teacher.  Consider that women were not educated as men were.  For example, they were not trained in philosophy, rhetoric or in the law (Judaism) as much as the men were.  Paul does reveal that he allows women to learn, which was a radical change from the status quo.

There appears to have been heresies spreading within the church by the ignorant (untrained and uneducated) women.  Note that the heresies originated from men.  So it becomes only fitting that the untrained women should not teach since they weren't qualified to do so.  Instead, they should submissively learn from the instructor.

A teacher at this time was more than someone that merely gave instruction.  The students were expected to listen, believe, and obey what was taught.  This gave the teacher a certain measure of authority over the students.

Another view is that women could teach as long as they didn't have authority over men.  This seemed reasonable in light of the fact that women having authority over men in this culture would have been met with great opposition.  Paul's statement may not have been doctrinal but rather cultural in an effort to slowly introduce the Christian doctrine and practices into a culturally strong community.

Yet another view is that Paul is protecting the leadership structure of the home.  The woman is not to have authority over her husband who is head of the home.  Another way of understanding the last discussion is that the authority of the husband in the home is not exclusive to the home. His authority over his family is absolute and is not overridden by the wife's leadership role in a church, which he too may be a member but not in authority. In other words, for the sake of argument, a women pastor (we will talk about this later) cannot assume (usurp) the authority over her husband just because she has a higher position in the church than her husband. His authority in his family extends even within the church that she pastors (but not within that church).

Saved Through Childbearing

This verse may refer to the birth of Christ and Mary therefore as the woman in question.  It might also refer to the woman's special task of bearing children.  The word "salvation" does not refer to the salvation of Jesus Christ (being born again).  It appears to be a reference to sanctification since true salvation (justification) can come only by believing in Jesus Christ.

What does Paul mean that women will be saved through childbearing?  It appears that the most fitting explanation given the context and other teachings concerning women is that women will be sanctified (grow in the faith) if they accept their purpose that was established at the creation. Don't grasp authority from men or anyone who is in authority. It is important to realize that Paul is NOT saying that women will be "born again" because they give birth to children. Nor can this imply that women will be physically saved while giving birth because many women die while giving birth.

Findings on Women Teachers and Authority

First we learned that there appeared to be heresy perpetuating throughout the Ephesian church and that women seemed to be significantly perpetuating this heresy. We saw that women were far less educated then men in regards to the law and Christian doctrine and other things such as rhetoric. Therefore, they were prone to believe something that was not true, i.e., heresy. This is true even today for both men and women. Not knowing the word of God makes you prone to believing a false doctrine because of your lack of knowledge. The church at Ephesus also had to deal with the significant pagan and cultic environment, which was challenging the sanctity of church doctrine.

To this Paul says that the women should learn with a submissive and quite disposition and that they should not teach because they are currently not qualified to teach. Paul does not forbid the women to teach in an overall sense. However, since they were not trained in the law or Christian doctrine, it was necessary for them to not teach authoritatively over men or to forcibly take an authoritative position (usurp authority) in the church.

So what we have here is a principle that applies today as well. No one should teach unless he or she is qualified to do so. Since women were very active in the spread of the Gospel and even in Paul's ministry, we can confidently say that Paul was not restricting women's role in teaching as a general Christian doctrine.

However, from another perspective it does appear that Paul may have been restricting the women from having authority over men. This would have been a purely cultural thing since we have already found that men are not superior to women by God's design. So any authoritative rules would have to be connected to cultural norms. We should also note that women did play a significant role in the spread of Christianity, which included teaching. So the bottom line is that there is no New Testament doctrine originating from Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian faith that prohibits women from participating in worship or in leadership of the churches. Any such restrictions are man made or culturally induced.

A Note on Culture

Cultural practices may be a valid reason to restrict women in certain aspects of ministry even though there is no doctrinal reason for doing so. This is the same argument that Paul used when he dealt with women and the head coverings (See 1 Corinthians 11:3-12). This doesn't mean that women shouldn't pursue something that isn't culturally accepted. However, it may be to the best interests of everyone if women, as well as men, operate within the bounds of their culture. Of course there will always be the innovators but the surrounding culture should always be a consideration though not necessarily a final restriction. What am I saying? In many churches today it is held that women should not preach from the pulpit. That is reserved for men only for whatever reason.

Let's say that a guest evangelist was invited by a women's organization of a church to speak at a service. Even though there is no Christian doctrine that would restrict her from preaching from the pulpit, it would be in her best interest and of those present if she did preach from the podium. Over a period of time, she may preach in a way to prepare the people for THAT day when she or another women does preach from the pulpit.  She would probably cause more confusion and animosity if she defied the norms of that church and stood at the pulpit.  Besides that, few would actually hear her message because of the attention drawn to her defiance.

Women Keep Silent

Now we are going to move onto another common teaching in the church.  Are women allowed to prophesy or teach in the church?  Are women allowed to speak in tongues during church services?  Consider the following scripture.

1 Corinthians 14:31 through 1 Corinthians 14:34 (NKJV) ³¹For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. ³²And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. ³³For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.  ³⁴Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

It is very important that the context of these verses be considered when interpreting the statements about women being silent.  In 1 Corinthians 14:1-25, there are no restrictions given to women prophesying or speaking in tongues.  Women were allowed to participate in church worship just as the men.  The context suggests that Paul's concern is the orderly implementation of these activities.  Therefore, he gives guidelines for prophesying and speaking in tongues during church worship.

it would appear in verse thirtyfour that Paul prohibits women from speaking in church, which would include prophesying and speaking in tongues.  Considering that women participate in these activities today, it would be foolish to say that the women of the modern church is in violation of Christian doctrine and therefore must stop prophesying and speaking in church services.  Therefore, let's examine these verses more closely while considering the context.

Recall that we previously said that women were not accustomed to participating in public gatherings with men.  In Jewish worship the women were separated from the men.  Even in the Christian churches, the women were separated.  We also stated that the women were far less educated then the men.  It was normal for a lecturer to be interrupted by a valid question from a knowledgeable person.  However, it appears that the women may have been interrupting the service to ask their husbands questions or they may have simply been chattering or asking ridiculous questions of the lecturer (teacher).  To this Paul says that the women should keep silent.

The word "women" is a Greek word that specifically refers to a wife and not just any women.  The phrase "