When I wrote the first part of what is now becoming a series, I intended for it to generate discussion and responses. To some degree, it has done that. Nearly all of the responses I’ve received directly have been quite positive, by the way, with a few exceptions of course. However, from what I sense and hear about, I think one of the responses has been, not surprisingly, similar to responses generated by my articles addressing another type of systemic issue, that of unconscious racial prejudice. So, how are the responses similar? Avoidance, with the hope that the discussions will simply die down quickly and disappear. They won’t. Our younger generations (and many of their parents, by the way) simply won’t let that happen.
One of my advisors for this article is a very impressive young woman who just began her college career in an Ivy League school. She gave me this feedback: “My one suggestion would be to possibly include some of the positive reactions you received to the first article. I think many people don’t understand how big of a deal it was to so many women for you to say those things. I think it could help some of the older generation understand how deeply our hearts yearn for change and how strong our desires for validation are.” (I will let her speak for all the others – and there have been many.) What that in mind, I will do my best to keep all prejudices and biases of which we are generally unaware (unless we are the object of them) exposed on a consistent basis, at least the ones most pertinent to church life. They are hurting individuals within our fellowship and they are a hindrance to our effectiveness in reaching the lost. If we address them and change what needs changing, they can be a genuine catalyst for growth.
In this article, due to the length of material I want to ultimately include, I am going to limit my observations to the main things I am seeing, hearing and hearing about in response to addressing this topic. By far, the biggest needs to explore further fall within two basic areas. They will each be explored in two separate articles in the near future. One is the identity and relationship of leadership roles and authority. We are yet a long way from understanding this topic, and unless we understand the finer points of this one, we will not be able to make the needed progress in the realm of women leadership.
The other most pressing topic is that of understanding the importance of the cultural settings in place when the NT was written, and from there, what those cultural scenarios were and how they influenced the content we are reading 2000 years later. I made a statement in my first article that I believed was very fundamental, but I now view it as even more important to our continuing discussion. Here’s the statement: “The real estate world tells us that the three most important things in their realm are location, location and location. Similarly, the world of proper hermeneutics tells us that the three most important things in biblical interpretation are context, context and context.”
In that upcoming article on contextual considerations, I will include quotes from highly respected biblical scholars that will at least get us closer to seeing why and how these issues demand our attention. Prior to sharing those, we will have to deal with the topic of simplistic, flawed approaches to biblical interpretation that selectively choose which contextual issues to seriously consider and which to ignore. These fall within the realm of explicit and implicit sexist biases – which I will now take a moment to define more broadly.
Terminology Clarification
In my first article, I described “systemic” in this way as it related especially to racial issues: “Calling anything systemic simply means that it so stamped in our psyche that we have it without being aware of it. In that sense it is somewhat like carrying a virus or having something embedded in our DNA string that may be unseen – until it becomes seen.” My good friend and wordsmith par excellence, Tom Jones, offered an observation regarding my use of terminology. He pointed out that technically, systemic refers to something system-wide (our whole society in this case), whereas “implicit bias” more accurately describes unconscious biases, expectations, or tendencies that exist within an individual. Of course, biases accompanied by ill-will or self-aware prejudices fall into the realm of explicit (intended) bias whereas the unconscious type are implicit.
To say that racism is systemic is to say that it is found throughout our system – in business, in education, in criminal justice, basically everywhere so that a person is affected it by it wherever they turn – not simply that it is something people are doing unconsciously or without awareness. However, I believe that we can for the sake of simplicity tie systemic and implicit bias together and legitimately say that that implicit bias is systemic in our society. It is in that sense that I have used the term systemic and will continue to do so, including in my references to gender bias and sexism. But for those who might aware of and interested in more technically accurate terminology, I include this brief explanation. With that now clarified, let’s move to the more practical examinations and applications toward which this present article is aimed.
Responses and Concerns Prompted by Our Discussion
Several things have become more obvious through the responses and questions I have received after teaching on and writing about male/female role relationships. One already mentioned is that we are indeed painfully unaware of cultural contexts of the first century in which the books of the New Testament were written. Some of that lack of awareness is simply due to not yet being exposed to its importance and its content. However, some of that lack is related to a faulty approach to hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) – and in some cases, that flawed approach is deliberately chosen to apparently avoid having our traditional interpretations questioned. Due to underlying explicit and implicit gender biases, males can be curiously disturbed by delving into this area. That issue I will address in much more detail in a later article, for it is a scary one and a dangerous one. All I can figure out is that somehow it threatens our manhood and brings the insecurities out of our carefully locked and guarded emotional closets.
Area #2
A second area of awareness based on responses that I have received is that far too many of us seem almost incapable (at this point) of considering any type of leadership role without reading a worldly concept of authority into it. In my book, “Dynamic Leadership,” my first chapter was devoted to trying to help us distinguish roles and functions from positions and offices. Whether that had much effect I don’t know, but I do know that our worldly concepts are nearly impossible to shed, no matter what Jesus said and demonstrated about them. Our years in the world, with all of our experiences therein, established and reinforced our views of leadership and authority.
Then, in our earlier history as a church movement, we were led by a Navy Admiral’s son. In his attempts to tie his work in Boston to the so-called beginning of our movement, he prided himself in establishing what he (and then we) called “ordered” discipleship partner relationships. These were purposely designed to replace those previously called “prayer partners” relationships. The latter type provided a very reasonable approach to helping implement the many “one another/each other” directives in the New Testament. The former type provided Satan with an opportunity to promote the abuse of authority through these “one-over-another” relationship pairings.
In my opinion, this authoritarian approach to discipling ended up almost being the death knell of discipling, or nearly so. To me, this is beyond sad, for the biblical concept of discipling is what drew me into this movement in the first place, and a concept without which I do not believe that the evangelism of the world can be accomplished. The decline (near-demise?) of true discipling and our falling growth rate have tracked together, say what you want. Unbiblical, damaging discipleship (and the resultant absence of the right kind) is not the only thing on the list of what has negatively affected our growth, but I would put it at the top of the list – and almost everything else on that list is inseparably tied to the sins and failures of leadership. We must develop a much better understanding of Golden Rule leadership if we are to reverse some trends that badly need reversing. When we do broaden this understanding, the women’s role is going to end up inseparably connected to it.
Area #3
A third area that has become more apparent is that far too many of us are lazy – and careless as a result. We don’t like to dig into deeper issues. We don’t even like to read anything that is not quickly and easily understood. Our younger generations raised in the electronic age can be especially guilty of this, although many of them are indeed avid readers and students – in and out of classrooms. Others of their peers don’t read much unless forced to in school or jobs – they love Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other forms of social media platforms. They can handle a reasonably short You Tube video addressing serious topics, but if the time length indicator registers more than 10 minutes, they will hit the start arrow button reluctantly, if at all. The idea of digging into more technical writing almost causes them to hyper-ventilate. Because of that widespread tendency, I have been encouraged to put more and more of my writing into those briefer and more visual formats. While I’m willing to do at least some of that, complex issues cannot be understood without deeper study, and that includes reading slowly, carefully and even somewhat extensively at the very least.
If we are not willing to do that, we will simply scan what others have said until we find something with which we agree and latch on to it without expending the intellectual and emotional energy of studying for ourselves. Trust me, some have already stopped reading this article when it spread onto a second page! But based on passages like 2 Timothy 2:15, we can’t please God without being willing to pay the price demanded for learning spiritual truths, especially the more complex ones. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Since we are going to be judged by God’s Word, we had better be studying it – seriously! “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day” (John 12:48).
One dear sister in my own age category, a very accomplished student and teacher of the Bible, said something to this effect about my article. “I agree with what you have written, but my fear is that women especially will quickly buy into it just because you have said it and not as a result of their own study.” I couldn’t agree more and that thought disturbs me greatly. We cannot just follow what others have said, no matter how much we may like them or respect them. God is calling us all to be Bereans. “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Please follow that example when reading what I and others say or write.
Area #4
A fourth area brought to the surface by discussion our topic is how quickly we want to jump past principles directly to applications. This is closely related to area #3. Our attention spans are shot to pieces. If we don’t have ADD or ADDA or ADHD, we act like we do. Just give us the bottom line, Man, and let’s get on with it! What I said under Area #3 is certainly quite applicable here also.
Here is why I make this a separate, though related, category. One of the most frequent questions asked of me after my first article was published concerned specific roles that I thought women could serve in. So, Gordon, are you saying that women can be appointed as elders or evangelists; that they can lead churches? Those questions will have to be addressed in time but starting off the discussion by asking them is disturbing. We are dealing with a very sensitive area involving some interpretative complexities. The principles simply must receive our attention first, for without understanding them, how can we make applications that are biblically allowable and practically helpful?
Basically, all I said in my first article is that we needed to restudy the whole topic and that in my judgment, women were too limited and not utilized as fully as they deserved to be and as the church needed them to be. Some assumed that I was opening Pandora’s Box to anything and everything that the religious world was already practicing. Within that “some” were those saying “Amen!” and those saying “Oh, NO!” Let’s stop assuming and jumping to convulsions, and begin studying and talking. And let’s put a governor on our emotions, be they giddy excitement or red-faced anger.
Area #5
A fifth type of response demonstrated just how resistant some are to the idea of expanding (again) the involvement of our sisters in more public church participation, and how that resistance is most often age-related. We did once expand their involvement, as mentioned in my first article, but now seem even more reluctant to consider doing so again. Although I have received some surprisingly strong encouragement from those in our older generations, all of the negative responses have come from those over 50 (maybe 60). Hence, my oft-repeated statement (to the chagrin of some) that some who were once new wine, willing to break old wineskins, have unknowingly become old wineskins themselves. If you find yourself thinking “Amen” when you read that, you are not one of them; if you find yourself feeling defensive, you are. Figure it out.
As a young minister in the Mainline Churches of Christ, I was often very frustrated with some of our older ministers and our lack of direction in churches. I appreciated what they had done in their years of service and I learned many things from them. But I saw the ineffectiveness of the then-current status quo and just couldn’t act as though I were oblivious to it. I was viewed by not a few as something of a rebel, but I was not a rebel without a cause. This drive to be a part of something where great things happened led me to leave my former church association (in which I was pretty well established) and become a part of what I then called the “Discipling Movement.” There were a few others of my age and background who followed a similar path but not many. Those who did were still young inside no matter what their wrinkles may have been on the outside.
We find ourselves in a similar situation today in our movement of churches. Our younger members are not going to be content with just “doing church” in the way that many of the older generation are. They want to change the world. Our young men and young women want to change the world. They are trying hard to be appreciative of all that we older ones have done in the past and remain respectful toward us, but they are not talking very openly about what they are really feeling about our status quo. I feel for them and I’m concerned about where they are going to end up if we don’t get back to a mission aimed at changing the world far more than we are now changing it. I am loath to think that they may feel the necessity of leaving our fellowship as I left mine when I was young, but I know that some already have. Therefore, I am going to begin quoting more of the responses I receive from the those in Generations X, Y and Z. I am also going to begin publishing some of their own writing containing their honest-to-God beliefs and feelings that we need to hear and seriously consider. So, enough editorializing! I feel better – on that point at least!
A Disturbance in the Force!
I close with a great quote I just saw in a Facebook post by my dear friend, Steve Hiddleson. It strikes a great note for ending a potentially disturbing article!
“The kind of teaching that I have been giving has disturbed some people. I am not going to apologize at all, because, necessarily, if I have been traveling along thinking I am all right and there comes a man of God and tells me that there is yet much land to be possessed, it will disturb me. That is the preliminary twinge that comes to the soul that wants to know God. Whenever the Word of God hits us, it disturbs us. So don’t be disturbed by the disturbance. Remember that it is quite normal. God has to jar us loose.”
A.W. Tozer
Introduction
After I wrote three books in early 2016, I felt somewhat in a vacuum afterwards because I didn’t have any other area to pursue about which I felt passionate. Through a series of events, I discovered one and that led me to start a blog on racial issues. While I don’t think we have much overt racism in our fellowship of churches, I do think that we have far more systemic racism in our midst then we are aware of. Recently another series of events led me to delve into a similar area, that of systemic sexism. I agreed to be a sounding board and adviser to one of my sisters in Christ who was researching the subject, which started the ball rolling for me. To be honest, I was a reluctant adviser at the outset, but in time I became motivated to do a lot of my own study of male/female role relationships in the church.
Then, the region evangelist in my home region of the Dallas church, Derik Vett, asked me to teach a special series of midweek lessons on topics that he felt we really needed. One of these was on relationships in the church, and after we talked about my new area of interest, he encouraged me to make that aspect of relationships a part of the lesson. I just taught it Wednesday night. On the day before, I was finishing up my outline, which I write in some detail since we are sending them out via email after the lessons are taught. It occurred to me that such a detailed outline would be fairly easy to format into article form, which I did over the next few days.
The segment in my oral presentation Wednesday night was not too long, although the outline provided was longer. The article is even longer by quite a bit. However, it is not an exhaustive study of the topic and certainly not intended to be the “last word” on it. But it is intended to prompt some reexamination of the subject, and I believe it will. A number of individuals and groups in our fellowship of churches are currently studying the topic with renewed interest because the need is pretty obvious to many. Some may not appreciate a deeper examination of our traditionally held positions and practices, but most will welcome it. With that as a backdrop, I invite you to read the article and encourage your friends to do the same. God bless!
The Need for Discussion
Much discussion about the woman’s role is taking place in most church groups today who are identified as biblically conservative. That is certainly true of the ICOC group of churches, although most of the present discussion is taking place among the membership (especially the younger people) rather than among the leaders. Thankfully, some leaders and groups of leaders are delving into the subject. Several aspects of the discussion are much more important issues than most imagine. Although it is not the purpose of this article to dig into these issues too deeply, and certainly not to present a position paper for others to follow, I do want to prompt more dialogue on a subject that I believe is highly important right now.
Its importance is based on the fact that it involves one of the most visible current trends in our society, especially in the United States. Our young people are more influenced by trends than we older folks are, and although trends often go against biblical teaching, sometimes they prompt needed examination and re-examination of traditionally held views and practices. In my firm opinion, this area fits into the latter category. I have been thus motivated to restudy some of my own viewpoints recently, but this isn’t my first time to dig back into the topic. Quite the contrary. I have studied the role of women in the Bible for many years, although I have never been able to tie up all of the loose ends of the topic in a way that fully satisfied me – yet.
Some years back, shortly after Douglas Jacoby wrote an article entitled, “Wine, Women and Song,” I presented a similar lesson in the Boston Garden to the whole Boston church, which was followed by a presentation by Kay McKean, the congregational women’s ministry leader at the time. Doug’s lesson addressed three topics: social drinking in moderation, women’s roles and the use of instrumental music in worship. Mine addressed only the women’s role and is posted on my teaching website (gordonferguson.org). This present article will show that I have progressed in my teaching and conclusions on the topic since that original article. Continuing learning usually means changing some of our thinking. One thing about which we should totally agree is that this is a difficult subject and as such, dogmatism should be eschewed firmly.
Fear and Trepidation or Excitement and Adventure?
When we enter a discussion of these roles, I do so with at least some sense of fear and trepidation. It is a historically controversial area, and without spiritual guidelines being fully in place, one that often produces more heat than light. For whatever reasons, emotions are more likely to get hooked in contemplating this subject than in talking about most other biblical subjects. Like all such discussions that may take us in directions other than our traditional viewpoints, we need to tread carefully and spiritually. We also need to enter the learning arena with a spirit of excitement and adventure. Learning and changing are essential for us imperfect humans.
We cannot let our traditions keep us from examining and re-examining the positions that we hold currently. In our movement of churches, it took a painful re-examination before women were allowed to baptize other women, serve as ushers, and do any sharing at all in public worship services. Are we willing to be as open to discovering truth now as we were then, or have we reached the stage expressed by this somewhat humorous comment: “We have the truth in a wee small box and we have the keys to all of the locks!” May God protect us from such a mindset!
I am aware that a study of this subject has historically caused initially strong reactions and I’m sure will again. However, when we are dealing with areas that seem to fit into the “disputable matters” category (Romans 14:1), dogmatism, emotionalism and refusal to engage in such discussions are simply not spiritual responses. Although this article has been reviewed and encouraged by other respected teachers, I am speaking for no one but myself, but speak I will. Advice and input are always welcome and appreciated, but reactions aimed at stifling open discussion of potentially controversial topics are just not spiritual reactions or acceptable reactions. That being said, you are certainly invited to give me your (spiritual) reactions to this article. My best email address for responses is gordonferguson33@gmail.com. Disagreements are fine as long as we can disagree without being disagreeable. Capisce?
Hermeneutics – An Inexact Science
In order to restudy this topic, we naturally enter into the sometimes-challenging world of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). One of the most challenging aspects of New Testament interpretation is in trying to separate what is being taught merely because of the cultural setting from what is being taught as transcendent, enduring principle.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 11, women are told to pray and prophesy only with their heads covered, which we generally take to be based on the culture of the day in Corinth. Going bareheaded in that time and location indicated that the women doing so were loose morally. However, in Genesis 38:15, it was quite the opposite – the prostitutes covered their heads and faces. A comparison of those two passages makes it pretty much mandatory to view this practice as a matter of custom that varied in time and location.
But what of other passages – like 1 Corinthians 14:35?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 — “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
The word “silent” here means absolute silence, and if applied generally, women could not even sing. As always, contextual considerations are essential. The word “women” here could be translated as women or wives – and contextually it has to be wives because they had husbands! In the immediate context, prophets are being addressed, so the most likely interpretation is that the wives of the prophets were interrupting them. Hence, Paul in essence says, “Don’t do it – ask them later at home.” I would never spend much time explaining this passage, given how clear the context is for those who can get past their preconceived ideas.
However, here is a similar passage with a context that isn’t so easy to interpret culturally.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 — A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Paul does use an argument based on the beginning of mankind, but does that make it transcendent in application? Could it be that he is addressing only the need in this location and not setting forth a principle for all people in all places for all times? “Quietness and submission” was a stock phrase used for any student in ancient times. Rather than limiting women in some way, Paul appears to be granting them status as equal students/disciples. Such was certainly not the norm outside Christianity, nor had it been in Judaism prior to that. Verse 12 may be laying out a limitation in which he basically uses “teach” and “authority” in a technical, capital T and capital A sense. It’s almost, in the opinion of some, as if he is putting some hedges up and saying, “I’m talking about women elders or women running the show like they do up the street at the temple of Artemis.” No, they should not be elders, but rather be “quiet” – in first century vernacular like any other student where “quiet” seems to have equaled “learner.” This fits perfectly with the word translated “authority” (authentein), for it is only used this one time in the NT and its very etymology suggests a very harsh and controlling type of authority.
Consider verses 8-10 of this same chapter in this same type of cultural light:
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Should this passage be interpreted to mean that only males should pray and that only women should be concerned about modesty and discreetness in dress? Or does it make more sense to conclude that what is addressed about men and women is based on their particular sinful tendencies in Ephesus (lack of modesty on the part of women and praying without unity on the part of men)? Surely we should conclude it is the latter option and not the former.
Similarly, in 1 Timothy 5:11-15, younger widows had specific spiritual challenges with which to deal and were advised to remarry. This principle ties in well with 1 Timothy 2:15 – the need to be content with being wives and mothers, for that was the cultural practice and expectation of women generally. Taking that verse literally would mean that only married mothers would be saved. Literalism seems very positive when trying to support concepts that we are tied to emotionally, but it is in many biblical contexts a horrendous way to interpret God’s Word. The real estate world tells us that the three most important things in their realm are location, location and location. Similarly, the world of proper hermeneutics tells us that the three most important things in biblical interpretation are context, context and context.
What Type Equality?
Oddly, many discussions of the male/female role relationships in the church don’t pay much attention to Galatians 3:26-28, but it is indeed a very key passage in trying to understand those relationships.
Galatians 3:26-28 – So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Three examples of relationship areas are listed: Jew/Gentile; slave/free; and male/female.
All three were given biblical guidance in the NT, using principles that would help regulate these relationships in light of the then current cultural setting. Slavery was not condemned but rather regulated in passages like Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. However, Paul’s mentions of slaves are often similar to Galatians 3:28 in that slaves and free are to be regarded as equals in Christ (1 Corinthians 7:21-23; 12:13; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:11).
Surely these passages prove that Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free and males and females are equal in value before God and must be considered equal in value by each other in Christ. It doesn’t matter what our ethnicity, social status or gender is, for we are all equal in value as fellow disciples. But let’s take it a step further. Did God intend that other distinctions in these three areas continue in functional ways?
I think we can quickly agree that ethnicity or race shouldn’t have any bearing on how we relate in Christ, since we are all a part of God’s family as his children. I think we can also agree that God didn’t want slavery to continue, but only tolerated it for a time because it was so ingrained in the culture outside of Christ that it couldn’t simply be obliterated quickly by divine edict. The principles of Christ did in fact eventually overcome this cultural sin in most of our world and eliminated slavery in a return to God’s ideal will.
The real question is how much of what is said about the “place of women” in Scripture is similar to what is said about slavery, in that the customs of culture were recognized and regulated until such time as God’s original principles could be once again recognized and accepted? If God intended distinctions between slave and free to end, could he have intended distinctions between males and females to end? If so, then roles in the home and in the church should be entirely gift-based and not gender-based. More on that point will come as we continue.
Arrow and Target – God’s Provisional and Ideal Wills
The difference between God’s provisional will and his ideal will must be understood. A very helpful illustration of how the two “wills” relate was given to me through Michael Burns, one of the best exegetical teachers in our movement of churches. It involves seeing God’s provisional will as an arrow in flight toward its target, and the target represents God’s ultimate goal, or ideal will. Anywhere along its flight path, the teaching will be provisional, but when it hits God’s intended target his ideal will is then achieved. The eventual elimination of polygamy and slavery provide us with two excellent examples of the arrow/target analogy.
We know that the teachings about Jews, Gentiles and slaves fell within God’s provisional will. We have already mentioned the regulations about slavery within that provisional will, and many passages could also be listed that regulated Jew and Gentile relationships in the church. The whole of Acts 15 addresses some of those regulations, as do Acts 21, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. In time, the cultural differences between Jews and Gentiles lessened considerably, as would be logical after the temple was destroyed in AD 70.
In fact, as the writer of Hebrews described the legal replacement of the old covenant (the Old Testament covenant) by the new covenant, he predicted the practical end of the old covenant observations of customs. Hebrews 8:13: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” Prior to this time, Jews were welcome to follow Jewish customs as a matter of their culture as long as they didn’t bind those customs on Gentiles or view them as salvation issues. Based on the Hebrews 8 passage, I think God provided a transitionary period that lasted about forty years, from the establishment of the church to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
Oddly, we now have some modern-day Gentiles in the church wanting to practice these customs, which is rather astounding to me. The Jewish Christians of the first century tended to hold on to their customs almost as firmly as to Christ, so it was Christ PLUS. Now some Gentile Christians of our day are returning to Christ-plus thinking. Strange indeed are the whims of those “Torah pursuant” folks! You would think that the Book of Hebrews, written to help Jewish Christians avoid returning to Jewish practices in the first century, might be equally effective in helping modern Gentiles avoid customs that were never meant for any Gentile in any age, ancient or modern.
But back to our topic. If God intended for distinctions between slave and free, Jew and Gentile to end, why would that not have been the case with males and females? We certainly wouldn’t argue that God-given regulations for Jews, Gentiles and slaves in the NT meant that God intended those regulations to be in force in all places for all times, would we? If no, how can we argue that the similar regulations for females are to be in force in all places for all times? I know that imagining the possible implications of such possible conclusions is causing some of my readers to generate stomach acid and elevate blood pressure right now but hang in there and keep your mind open!
Back to the Beginning
This might be a good time to go back to the beginning of all male/female relationships, to the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 3:16-19 — To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Was this description of the consequences of sin for both males and females intended to be prescriptive (what should happen) or merely descriptive (what would happen)? If prescriptive, consistency would make it wrong for women to try to reduce their pain in giving birth and wrong for men to try to make earning a living easier. The most pressing question is whether Adam and Eve were equal before sin, and if so, would salvation in Christ provide us a return to spiritual life in a “Garden” state with God and each other in fully restored relationships? Just how powerful was the cross, in other words? Did it fully cure the curse or just partially cure it? I think Ephesians 2:6 has something to contribute in this regard: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.” But we still haven’t answered the question about Adam and Eve enjoying full equality prior to the Fall.
What about this passage – does it show that man is somehow superior to woman and thus to be her leader?
Genesis 2:20-25
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
For starters, it was obvious even to Adam that he needed help – indicating that he was not the complete package within himself. (Help the boy, Lord!) But does the term “suitable helper” (“help meet” in the KJV) indicate a role that is somehow inferior or subservient to the man? Since this word in Hebrew (“ezer”) is often used to describe God as our helper, it cannot possibly imply such. That may well have been the assumed implication in the minds of most folks for centuries, but it is not implied by the word itself.
My own life experience of 75 years would suggest that females are more spiritual inherently than males – superior in that way at least. We men need help, and but for our wives, would be more of a mess than we are! I call my wife an angel sent from God to help me get to heaven, because she is clearly more spiritually attuned than I and I genuinely don’t think I could have made it without her influence in my life.
And then you have the origination of man and woman, their source material. Does woman being made from a man’s rib make her inferior to man – who himself was made from dirt? As the quote from the old commentator, Matthew Henry, puts it: “Women were created from the rib of man to be beside him, not from his head to top him, nor from his feet to be trampled by him, but from under his arm to be protected by him, near to his heart to be loved by him.”
Equality is suggested in more than one way by this passage in Genesis 2. Marriage produces a unity of oneness, a virtual parallel to what Jesus prayed for in all of his followers and illustrated by his complete unity with the Father (John 17:20-21). Further, his teaching caused his enemies to say that he was making himself “equal” with the Father (John 10:33).
The man was incomplete, needing help and the woman provided this aid as his partner. Their mutual nakedness and all that goes with it in marriage, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, makes them totally equal in both sexual desires and responsibilities. The concept that wives are designed by God simply to meet the sexual needs of their husband’s supposedly stronger sex drive is a sexist viewpoint and not a biblical one. It certainly has never been the case in my own marriage – my historically strong sex drive (though diminished by old age) has been more than matched by that of my wife (still is)! This sexist view, in my opinion, has significantly affected in a negative way the full enjoyment of the sexual relationship in marriage for many women. After all, our most important sex organ is the one between our ears!
But isn’t man the protector of woman, as Matthew Henry’s quote puts it? Often, yes – especially physically, for the male is stronger physically, and in some other areas, perhaps also stronger emotionally (more fitted for battle as one example). That being said, the woman’s emotional capabilities often provide the protection of the male’s limitations and weaknesses emotionally. We males are sometimes thought to be a bit “clueless” in some areas, and probably for good reason! In general, we are not as in touch with our emotions or the emotions of others as females are. Small children with boo-boos go first to their mothers to be comforted, understandably. Bottom line, the male is incomplete without the woman and the woman is incomplete without the male – neither of which makes one superior or inferior to the other.
Are Roles Gender-Based or Gift-Based?
A question that must be addressed in our discussion is whether roles in the church are determined by the spiritual gifts we have or merely by our gender? The gifts of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 are not described in any gender sense at all. I don’t see any reason to confine the gifts of leadership or teaching to men, or the gifts of encouragement and serving to women. Some years ago, our Teacher Service Team was comprised only of men. When we discussed the possibility of adding women teachers, I was one of the most vocal in supporting such additions and suggested Kay McKean as one of the first women thus recognized. Thankfully, she was asked to join as several others have been since.
Of course, the discussions at the time focused on women teaching other women, but does God allow women to also teach men? In our physical family settings, you know quite well that women teach men – their husbands, their grown sons and grandsons, their brothers, etc. What about in God’s family? Acts 2 highlighted a very vocal role for them quite clearly:
Acts 2:17-18 — In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
Peter quoted Joel 2, which predicted that women would prophesy, and prophesy they did, as 1 Corinthians 11 amply illustrates. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Of course, we can insist that they only prophesied to other women if we want, but we cannot prove it biblically. It is only an assumption. Interestingly, in my study of Restoration history (composed of groups like the Church of Christ and Christian Churches), early leaders accepted the idea of women in the first century church prophesying to mixed groups of brothers and sisters but explained it in two different ways.
One approach was to say that such practices only applied in the miraculous age and the other approach stated that the same principles would apply in any age. In the latter instance, the accepted practices were far from the apparent accepted principles. Women were generally quite silent in most of those early restoration churches, with the exception of congregational singing. That being said, there are recorded instances of women being “exhorters” in church services, which is likely surprising to many of us coming out of that background. Comments of male leaders in those settings showed that they thought one’s gift-set and not gender should determine their role.
Does Pragmatic Evidence Have a Place?
Whatever you make of the passage in its entirety, experience has taught me some valuable lessons in my marriage. One, gifts are far more important than gender in determining function. If the wife has a gift of understanding finances and the husband does not, she had better quickly become the financial leader of the family. If the woman has a much stronger gift of discernment (emotional intelligence), she had better use that gift to help her husband learn how to relate to people generally and especially to his own children. We could give other examples of giftedness, but whoever in the marriage has the best gifts in any given area, they should be encouraged to use them. My wife and I recognize our strengths and weaknesses as individuals pretty well by now, and we are submissive to the leadership of the one with the stronger gifts. We have learned that leadership in the home cannot be determined simply by gender; it must be determined by strengths in any area, “gifts” to use a biblical term.
Two, leadership is a matter of both gifts and training. It takes time (along with some sparks) to determine giftedness, but training must help develop the practical use of the gifts. The goal is to maximize the use of our combined gifts, which results in an effective leadership team. When I first started teaching about leadership in marriage, I was more gender-based in my thinking than gift-based. That has decidedly changed over the years. In a later phase, I agreed that the husband shouldn’t make the big decisions singlehandedly, but in the event of a tie regarding smaller issues (smaller in his opinion, of course!), he should break the tie by just making the decision.
Now, we make decisions as a team and if we reach a stalemate on issues that we both agree are big ones, we ask someone else in to help us decide. When we reach stalemates on issues that we both agree are small ones, we each pick a number between 1 and 10 to indicate how important our choice is to us, and whoever has the higher number thus casts the deciding vote. We heard someone say that this is how they broke ties but decided to start practicing it when we were once arguing about a restaurant in which to eat. In the midst of our disagreement, it dawned on me that if we eat three times a day, that adds up to well over 1000 meals a year. So, just how important could any one of them be? I am not going to overpower my partner about any decision, nor she me. Pragmatism in many areas is just common sense involving practical applications of the Golden Rule and the intent to obey what Paul said in Philippians 2:3-4. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”
Making changes as time passes can be evidence of losing convictions and otherwise drifting away from the Scriptures. But gradual changes can also reflect practical learning experiences under the providential leadership of God. Consider these two passages in that light:
John 8:31-32
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Philippians 3:15-16
All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
The first passage implies that in our following of God’s Word, truths (application of truths) dawn on us. We don’t see and understand them immediately and may never understand exactly how and why they work, but in time their effectiveness becomes clear. The second passage promises that God will continue to reveal the practical application of his truths and keep us on a maturing track if we will cooperate by doing our best with what we know in the meantime. In both cases, time is necessary to produce a better understanding of some things. Thus, an element of pragmatism is built into the Christian system by God himself.
We Have Already Accepted Pragmatism!
I find it interesting that we as a movement of churches have continued to adapt our practices both consciously and unconsciously. Women were hired to be “in the ministry” fairly early on but limited in other ways. A couple of decades ago, we discussed and accepted the concept of women baptizing women, women serving as ushers and passers of communion trays, and as sharers along with their husbands in giving communion talks.
Gradually we began to accept more public types of participation. Married couples taught together about marriage and parenting principles. We may have prefaced such team teaching with the statements that the women were addressing women, but the men didn’t insert earplugs when the women were teaching, and I was often as convicted and inspired by what the women taught as by the men’s teaching (sometimes more so). My wife and I have taught as a team on subjects beyond those of family, and I have heard others do the same.
On at least one occasion, I was assigned a class in a leadership conference where I co-taught with a woman not my wife, my good friend Linda Brumley in this case. Our topic was forgiveness and since she had just written a book on the subject, I suggested that she take the majority of the class time, which she did. Everyone in that audience seemed pretty comfortable with the approach, and I certainly was. I didn’t see one person, male or female, blocking their ears with their hands or walking out! Linda is a great teacher and she taught a great class. Of course, the question is whether we “drifted” into these changes or gradually adapted to the culture changes around us without violating scriptures. I believe it was the latter.
Although it took me some years to learn how a husband/wife relationship works best, some are faster learners than I. One young married disciple, a husband and father to daughters, had this to say after reading similar material of another writer.
First, it brought to the forefront my personal reflection on how being a dad of daughters and no sons affects my role in God’s kingdom. I’ve at times lamented the lesser influence I may have because the people I can most influence in this world are female. Some Old Testament narratives and earthly culture suggest the notion I have failed in some way by not having a son. It’s hard for me to separate from that notion, and I’ve felt that certain scriptures and how I’ve understood them only perpetuate it. I cry as I type this, tapping into this feeling that frankly I’ve suppressed unknowingly. If I feel less valuable because of this notion, I can only imagine how my daughters (wife, mothers, sisters, etc.) feel. The transcending gospel message rejects this notion, and I need to take that thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.
I commend this young man for coming to recognize and deal with his own form of subtle sexism, because it is hurtful to others and to ourselves. I only pray that my material helps some of those who read it to see their own hang-ups and biases more clearly.
Are Women Inferior to Men?
That’s a more relevant question than you might imagine. Charles Darwin wrote that women were definitely inferior to men, falling into his evolutionary chain about halfway between children and men. I was raised in a full-blown Southern chauvinistic cultural setting in which I often heard statements like this as I was growing up: “If you let women get in the middle of this, you are going to end up with a mess!” After all, a woman’s place was in the home minding her own business, a business which consisted of taking care of the children, cooking, washing and ironing, keeping the house in order and providing sex. Such thinking was blatant and easily identified, and it laid the foundation for what has now become systemic sexism or systemic chauvinism. As such, it is embedded in our cultural thinking in much more subtle ways – at least to males, although not nearly so subtle to females.
We wouldn’t succumb to such antiquated thinking in the church, right? Ask the women. Ask especially the women under 40. They will be happy to provide examples of how they feel marginalized. Our leadership groups are typically male dominated, especially when it comes to making decisions about the direction of the church. For years, I have pushed to have the wives of leaders in leadership meetings of all types. I began asking for such as a result of my own pragmatic nature. I don’t particularly like business type meetings but have spent thousands of hours in them. Often, after spending a considerable chunk of time in a meeting of men only, I would go home and tell Theresa about our wonderful decisions. She would frequently say something like this in response: “You decided what? Have you thought about this, this, this and that regarding the women?” Nuts! Now we had to go back into another meeting and reconsider what had already been decided by us brilliant males!
Encouraging the wives of leaders to be included in leadership groups is not the whole story. We have single women who have the gift of leadership who would provide great insights from their perspectives. We have women in other situations who have such gifts and are exercising them in the world but are not invited to do so in the church. Although I favor our normal approach of having married leaders serve together in leadership roles, that is not always possible. Some have the gift whereas their mates do not. Should the mate with the gift always be excluded because their mate’s gifts don’t coincide with theirs? And then we have another loose end hanging out on this subject. What about when a leader’s mate dies or is otherwise incapacitated – what then? The male may often stay in leadership but the female who loses her mate usually doesn’t. Where is the logic of that, and more importantly, where is the biblical foundation for such? If you can’t identify that customary practice of ours as pure tradition, please keep thinking about it. We have many aspects of male/female role relationships in the church with which to wrestle, do we not?
If over half the church is comprised of women, how can we make decisions about them without them having a voice? The movie title, “Dumb and Dumber” is pretty apropos in describing our modus operandi when we don’t have women in leadership groups consistently. That basic pragmatism put me on the track of trying to promote female inclusion in leadership meetings. Then in time, another type of pragmatism found its mark in my head and heart. Women are just flat-out smart, and often smart in ways that males are not.
In the mid-1990s, I was asked to head up a committee to develop a curriculum for our movement’s Children’s Ministry. How I ended up in that role is still a mystery, for although I was a recognized teacher in our churches, I had no experience with the children’s ministry. Thankfully, my wife had quite a bit of experience and quite a bit of interest in it. Knowing that the best leaders are those who seek assistance from others who are more qualified than they, beginning with the advice asking stage, I started putting together our Kingdom Kids Curriculum Committee. We ended up with some couples, giving us some males (who were really good in this field), but the majority of the group were females (who also really knew their stuff).
We spent hundreds of hours together over the next several years, and it was one of the highlights of my ministry career. I knew less than anybody in the group about what we were doing, but I was a pretty effective facilitator. However, near the end of the project, I hit my own wall, and persuaded Sheila Jones of Discipleship Publications (DPI) to take over my role. She very expertly brought the project to a conclusion. By the time we had a conference in Los Angeles to roll out the curriculum, any remnants of chauvinism that would make me question the abilities of women in any fashion, subtle or otherwise, were gone.
Of course, some males reading this may be thinking to themselves that if women are so talented, why are they not in more high-powered positions of leadership in the world? Ask a black person that question. They know the answer. From their perspective, they will say, “It’s a white man’s world,” meaning a white person’s world. But the black women know that it is also a white male’s world. The reason those of color know the answer is because they have to deal with the same question about why more people of color aren’t in those high-powered positions either. Bottom line, our systemic racism and systemic sexism produces in the majority a mistrust, however subtle it may be. These systemic issues are as real as raindrops in a hurricane, but often so incredibly subtle that only the ones affected realize their presence.
Going back to my early chauvinistic roots and the idea that women in the middle of things will somehow mess it up, I have a big question. As I look at the history of our male dominant leadership movement, do you really think that including women in much more prevalent ways could have messed up things more than we males did? (Yes, of course I include myself – I’m a male leader!) Our military style leadership put us in a place that a single letter in the early part of this century set off a timebomb that had been ticking for years. Although we have recovered pretty remarkably in some ways since that explosion, our growth rate as a whole has all but stalled out. So, I repeat: do you really think that including women in a much greater way in our leadership would have done worse than we males have done? I rest my case! (Smile…)
Systemic Issues Abound
For the past year and a half, I have been posting articles on my blogsite about racial issues (blacktaxandwhitebenefits.com). One of the biggest challenges I have faced is in helping white folks who are not conscious of having racial prejudices understand that they still have views and reactions coming out of the systemic racism ingrained into our American society. Calling anything systemic simply means that it so stamped in our psyche that we have it without being aware of it. In that sense it is somewhat like carrying a virus or having something embedded in our DNA string that may be unseen – until it becomes seen. Thus, we get “woke,” to use a common term in the racial discussion realm, and then see what we have been missing without having realized it prior.
Systemically present ills are not reserved for systemic racism. We also have systemic nationalism, systemic politicalism, and systemic sexism. The latter is what this article is addressing. It can be found in various aspects of systemic ageism as well – a topic we will address shortly. Here is how one sister helped me to see my chauvinism (which I very much appreciated, by the way). She quoted a section from my book on Romans as follows:
The differences here are in the realm of opinion, to be sure, but how can you tell if an area is an opinion area? Good question, but not an easy one. When good brothers [and sisters…I asked Gordon if I could add “and sisters,” while lovingly chiding him, “See what I mean?”] who love God and his word have consistent differences on a given subject, we had better guard ourselves from having dogmatic attitudes. To one, a given issue may seem quite clear, but the issue may be not at all clear to another. In such areas, abide by your own personal conscience, but avoid dogmatism.
Another evidence of systemic sexism in our churches is the very resistance of some males to the idea of women teaching about their own role as a woman. The resistance sometimes takes the form of suggesting that our sisters don’t have the formal training necessary to write about deeper doctrinal or academic subjects. However, we seem to recognize that the validity of one’s training doesn’t have to be tied inseparably to one’s time spent in an academically accredited institution of higher learning – at least in the case of males. I don’t recall Jesus or his apostles having such credentials, Paul being the exception, but I do recall both Jesus and his original Twelve being discredited for lack of same. Some of the most educated people I have ever known were self-educated or educated in ways other than in the ivy halls of academia. That’s about the only way that we have in years past encouraged our women leaders to be trained. Are you starting to understand what the term “systemic” means? I hope so, for we cannot change what we do not see.
Who Should Have a Voice?
Speaking of comments about the role of women in the home or church, most lessons (whether oral or written) are given by men and not women, at least in our movement. Does that not strike you as being a bit strange? Imagine an audience of blacks and whites in which only whites addressed racial issues? Honestly, that is too close to what we have practiced regarding the women’s role to leave me feeling comfortable. Our US Diversity Group is more black than white, and in a recent presentation to a group of leaders, a few of the presenters were white but most were black. In an upcoming leadership conference, two of our US presenters will likely be black (one male and one female) and the only white presenter is married to an African American. Isn’t it obvious that this should be the case? Then why in the name of common sense should it always be the role of men to examine and explain the role of women?
Ephesians 5 – Proof Positive?
Ephesians 5 is a passage that has received much attention in arguing for male leadership in the home. Verses 22-24 do say that the wife is to be submissive to her husband and that he is her head. But are the issues really as simple as that? Not to me, and I speak from the position of having taught male dominance in my early marriage and ministry, but I now speak from the position of having been married for 53 years. In those decades, I have learned quite a lot about leadership in the marriage relationship, many of those lessons coming from my own mistakes and stupidity.
Here are some considerations that should totally eliminate any idea that Ephesians 5 supports the husband being anything like the “boss” of the relationship. For starters, verse 21 states that we should “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission goes both ways in any form of true spiritual leadership. Then, verses 25-28 require that the husband love his wife in a Christ-like, sacrificial manner that helps her be holy – loving her as much as he loves himself. If you can get anything akin to “boss-man” out of that, you must have used a crowbar!
Also keep in mind that Jesus was using the marriage relationship to illustrate his relationship to the church, not vice-versa. Ephesians 5:32-33 – “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Then you have to ask the question of this passage that we have asked of others. Is this one based on the then-current cultural viewpoints (in which women were often viewed as possessions – much like slaves were), offering the best regulations possible for that era, or is what was said intended to be understood as containing transcendent, enduring principles? I’m not settled out one way or another on this one – yet.
Many arguments pro and con have been offered in answer to my question. Two things I am pretty sure of is that Jesus’ relationship to the apostles fits into the equation and my 53 years of marital experience also fits into it. Regarding the former, Jesus was the Master, as God in the flesh, but he led his relationships with the apostles in a clearly discernable direction. His example shows us that all roles and relationships in God’s family are designed to move toward deeper friendships, shared responsibilities and equality through common purposes.
What Jesus taught about leadership is essential to understanding all roles and relationships in the church. Leadership is essential and followership is equally essential – no organization of any type can flourish well without both. But do we really understand the difference between spiritual leadership and worldly leadership? Given the fact that our movement was led in many of its early years by a military style leader, that question must be asked and answered. Listen to Jesus:
Mark 10:42-45 — Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Broadly speaking, authority is of two basic types: position only authority (as in “I’m the boss around here!”) and influence authority. Influence authority can be divided into two parts also, that of knowledge (expertise) and relational influence. We go to the doctor and do just about anything they (I wrote “he” at first!) say, not because they have any positional authority over us at all, but because we trust their knowledge, training and experience. Outside of professional fields, we are more likely to trust the advice of a close friend than the advice of someone we just met at a bus stop.
In the church, authority should never be positional only, although sometimes positional authority is needed in combination with influence authority. For example, someone has to set our schedules for spiritual group activities, but even those decisions are best made by a leadership team rather than one individual. My books, “Golden Rule Leadership” (co-authored with Wyndham Shaw) and “Dynamic Leadership” give ample attention to team leadership principles.
In the church, authority in leadership is mainly influence authority and as such, moves toward those deepened relationships, shared responsibilities and equality as family members working together for shared purposes. Jesus modeled this kind of leadership perfectly. Note his words and actions in John 13 and John 15.
John 13:13 – “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.” (note that he said this right after washing the disciples’ feet)
John 15:15 – “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
No Stumbling Blocks Allowed!
If the cultural setting of the first century helped determine the role of women, should the cultural setting of the 21st century do the same? In other words, if some are disturbed by a re-examination of the women’s role and the idea of change in our practices, should not that cause us to back off of the subject and let well enough alone? While the answer to questions like this one may be “yes” at times, the answer is not a simple one.
Generational differences have to be considered, and how the younger generations view women’s roles is far different than how those of the older generations generally do. Holding on to traditions is another consideration, and it is a fact that those who tend to be traditionalists are the older ones who don’t see their traditionalism clearly, if at all. A related sad fact is that aging all too often (not always) ends up with those who were once new wine, breaking old wineskins, now having become old wineskins themselves – but they don’t see it.
Don’t suppose that the younger generations in our churches don’t see this clearly in us, and don’t suppose that it doesn’t present a real challenge to them! Those of us who have traveled a lot and are prone to ask probing questions of the younger generations will tell you the same things. Some of their peers are leaving the church, feeling that they don’t have a voice. Even those on the ministry staff often share similar feelings but are reluctant to voice their real concerns. They do seem comfortable voicing them to me, perhaps because they know I am gung-ho about changing anything personally that will help me be more like Jesus and that will help others do the same. They will also tell you that some young men and young women are refusing to become a part of our fellowship because they think we are out of touch, and the women’s role is one of the main issues behind their conclusions.
So the End Justifies the Means?
Some of you are thinking about now that I am suggesting that being open to changing our ideas and practices to attract more people to our churches justifies compromising the Scriptures. I have zero intention of changing the Bible’s teaching to fit our society, but I have every intention of changing our traditions to fit the Bible’s teaching. At present, I am teaching a five lesson midweek series in my home region in Dallas on “hot topics.” One is about relationships and includes some of what I have in this article regarding male/female role relationships. Another lesson is about alcohol, drugs (with marijuana being legalized in more and more places) and sex. What I will teach will be clear (and thus offensive) to some, particularly when using Romans 1 to address sex outside marriage and homosexuality. The final lesson will be about conversion, and yes, there will be water in the plan – taught strongly and unapologetically.
That being said, I am advocating what Paul said (and practiced) about adapting to save as many as possible, for that principle fits all generations, times and places.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
Adaptations to cultural changes should be calculated carefully and knee-jerk reactions avoided. We shouldn’t be the first to institute changes that might be disturbing to the older generations, but we certainly should not be the last. Above all, we should be open to reconsidering anything from a biblical perspective that might make us more relatable to those we are trying to win for Christ.
Yes, I know that this subject and this article are disturbing to some. And I know that through Paul, Jesus taught that we shouldn’t cause the weak to stumble (lose their faith). But both Jesus and Paul caused many to grumble (and the difference between the two is huge)! Traditions and truths may or may not coincide, and when they don’t, viewing them as though they do was strongly denounced by Jesus in his earthly ministry. Some of our traditions are based on Scripture and some are not. Some are helpful and some are not. Whatever else may be said, a continuing pursuit of truth is at the very heart of the definition of a disciple – a learner!
A Final Plea
As I said near the beginning of the article, when I enter a discussion of the male/female roles in the church, I do so with some sense of fear and trepidation. Therefore, I humbly request of you several things. One, please understand that my critiques of us all (me included) are aimed at helping us become more like Jesus and like Paul, who did all they could to relate to and influence the masses for God. I am a fellow sinner, in need of much patience and grace from both God and my spiritual family. Two, please understand that I am not offering this article as the final word on the subject. Far from it. This is a complex topic and a controversial one. I am just requesting that we take it out of the closet and expose it to the invigorating light of renewed biblical investigation. Three, please understand that we are a family and that we must view and treat each other as dearly loved family members. All members of any family do not always agree on everything that affects them. We simply must be able to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
For sure I’m not implying that anyone who holds a different position or conviction on this topic than I do is a chauvinist or an oppressor of women, but those elements can be present to an appreciable degree in the church without our even realizing it. I keep using the term “systemic” because it best describes having some sexist underpinnings in our thinking without being conscious of it. I’m talking about all of us males, including me. When I wrote the section about influence authority via expertise, I used the example of our near certainty to follow a doctor’s orders in spite of the fact that they have neither positional nor relational authority in our lives. When describing that example, I used the male pronoun four times without even thinking about it (until I re-read it). I just used it again in writing this very paragraph but caught it and changed it! And yet in the past year, I’ve been treated by several female doctors, one of whom I trusted enough to cut me open and do hernia repair surgery. Even though our unconscious sexism is absent of evil intent, we may still make our sisters feel disrespected and marginalized. Regardless of where our deeper studies about these roles lead us in practice (which will vary as it does already), we are still brothers and sisters trying to be the best kids to our Father and each other that we can be. So, let the digging deeper process begin. That is all I am pleading for here.
The best closing verse that came to my mind is the following one, and it encapsulates the elements of my final plea quite well. “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). God, please be our “Ezer,” for we need much help as your feeble children! We know that you describe yourself as both mother and father at times, and we long for all of your loving care and guidance, especially when our spirituality might be tested!
Chapter 9 (“from the book, “Messianic Judaism”) — The Sabbath
This chapter addresses Messianic Judaism’s treatment of the Sabbath. The Messianics teach that we need to keep the Sabbath today as one of the Ten Commandments. Accordingly, members of this movement do not gather on Sunday, but on Saturday.
Seventh-Day Adventists came into existence in the nineteenth century with a similar message about the Sabbath. Here we will look at scriptures to consider this teaching, and we will conclude with some thoughts about the good aspects of keeping the Sabbath and how to interpret the fourth commandment.
Sabbatarians, those who adhere to the Sabbath as a day of rest, insist that it does not fall on Sunday, but Saturday. They are correct about the day of the week assigned to Sabbath. Historically and theologically, Sabbath was and is the seventh day of the week (Saturday, or technically sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). Although Christians have been meeting on Sunday to take communion since the very beginning, this issue became confused when, in the fourth century, the church created a Sunday Sabbath. Before Emperor Constantine, Sunday was not a legal day of rest or worship; it was a workday even for Christians who met to worship. In the early 300s, the pagan emperor Constantine, who converted to Christianity, made Sunday the legal Roman day of rest. There was no Sunday Sabbath or day off until the fourth century. This was put in place by the state, not by biblical mandate.
In the book of Acts, Paul preaches in the synagogue on Sabbath three times. Some Sabbatarians use this as evidence that Paul is still an observant Jew keeping Sabbath. They extend this further to say that his actions are a model for Christian practice. However, the Bible does not tell us exactly what Paul thought about the Sabbath. His purpose was to preach to Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. Sabbath would be the optimal time to preach to the largest audience of Jews, unlike, say, Tuesday or Thursday. The early church evangelized on the Sabbath because they always wanted to reach out to those who were familiar with the Scriptures, the original sons and daughters of Abraham, who could serve as a kind of beachhead providing leadership and stability in the faith. The Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree, so to speak.
What does Scripture reveal about the significance of Sunday? The early Christians had a reason for feeling differently about Sunday compared to Saturday or Friday. Jesus appeared after his resurrection on Sunday morning, and again that Sunday evening (John 20:19). He was also seen the next Sunday. The church began on Pentecost, a Sunday (Acts 2:1). In Acts 20:7, it says that the Christians gathered to break bread on the first day of the week, though they were not legalistic about this: since they did not break bread until after midnight, it occurred on Monday. 1 Corinthians 16:2 also uses “first day” wording, this time regarding monetary collections. In Revelation 1:10, John the revelator says he was in the Spirit on “the Lord’s Day.” That word “Lord’s Day” in modern Greek, kyriakē, is the same word as in the book of Revelation: the word for Sunday.
Sabbath was not changed from Saturday to Sunday in the early church teaching or practice. Rather, Sunday only became a so-called Sabbath three hundred years later, when church and politics started overlapping in the fourth century. “The Lord’s Day” was always Sunday.
Even if Sunday was always, historically, the Christian day of worship, do Christians still need to observe the Sabbath? Many maintain that the Sabbath originated and was observed in the beginning of creation, even observed by Adam. An ancient Jewish text, The Book of Jubilees, claims that Adam was born circumcised and kept all the festivals and feasts. Adam and his wife being the only humans in creation, this task seems quite challenging. There is no biblical evidence of a Sabbath prior to the time of Moses. Before Moses delivered the children of Israel from cruel bondage in Egypt, Hebrew slaves were not allowed a day of rest. In Egyptian history, there was no weekend, and the work week may have been ten days long. For the few days when the Nile flooded each summer, work ceased, but there was no “day off.” We indirectly thank the Torah for the weekend. The prayer in Nehemiah 9:13–14 makes the mosaic origin of Sabbath explicit:
“You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses.”
While the concept of Sabbath, God’s rest on the seventh day, may be traced back to the creation narrative, we must not infer that its observance was instituted before Scripture makes it explicit.
The writings of the church fathers support the view that early Christians met on Sundays to take communion and to worship. They also confirm that Sabbath does not need to be observed by Christians. The three comments from church fathers included below are typical. One is by Ignatius of Antioch in Syria, who was martyred soon after the year 100. He says this: “If then, those who had lived in antiquated customs came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s Day—on which also our life arose through Him… how shall we be able to live apart from him?”27
He uses that phrase “the Lord’s Day,” kyriakē, the Greek word for Sunday. “No longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s Day” clearly indicates that Sunday worship was not the same as the Sabbath, even in the early church.
The Epistle of Barnabas is also an early-second-century text. Here he quotes from the Prophets and offers commentary:
Moreover God says to the Jews, “Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.” You see how he says, “The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the sabbath which I have made in which, when I rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day, which is the beginning of another world.” Wherefore, we [Christians] keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven.28
Barnabas describes the day of worship as the eighth day, the day after the Sabbath. Although we say that Sunday is the first day of the week, from another perspective (in many other passages) it was viewed as the eighth day.
Justin Martyr, the Samaritan philosopher who became a Christian and was martyred in the middle of the second century, also addresses the significance of Sunday worship:
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.29
According to Justin Martyr, Sunday gained its theological importance as the day that Jesus rose from the dead and the day that he ascended.
It is unlikely that the generation after the apostles forgot the truth about the Sabbath. For Messianic Judaism to be correct, because it is refuted by all the abundant evidence of the second century, the generation of the apostles would have had to have lost the theological thread completely. We looked at Ignatius: Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John, and he says we no longer keep the Sabbath, but live in accordance with Sunday. The Epistle of Barnabas is very early, perhaps even from the first century. It says that they celebrated on the eighth day: Sunday, not Saturday.
The Sabbath receives no emphasis at all in the New Testament documents themselves. If it is mandatory or preferable for Christians to keep the Sabbath, it is odd that Paul mentions the Sabbath only once, in Colossians 2:16. In that verse, he asserts that Sabbath observance is not required and that believers should not be judged on keeping the Sabbath or religious festivals. In Galatians 4:8–11, Paul is upset because the Jewish calendar is creeping back into the church, so that they are observing special days, months, seasons, and years. Therefore, according to Colossians 2 and Galatians 4, Sabbath days, Sabbath years, Jubilee years, new moon celebrations, and festivals must not be emphasized. Although they remind us of their fulfillment in Jesus and they are not forbidden, these rituals and special days are not meant to be the rhythm or focal points of the new covenant.
Some Messianics might counter that the New Testament did not emphasize these holidays because everyone knew you had to obey the commandments. Yet most of the Old Testament commands do not carry over, and historically, the church’s demographic makeup was becoming increasingly Gentile. Chapter 3 illustrates how some regulations could only be followed if you were living in Israel.
While primary sources offer a compelling and consistent explanation of the biblical and early church view of the Sabbath and Sunday worship, some readers may still feel unbalanced with the lack of symmetry regarding the Ten Commandments. For uniformity, it seems correct that either they should all be repudiated or, if they are not repudiated, then all ten should be required. For nine of those commandments, from the first, to worship the one God, and the second, to have no idols, all the way to the tenth, not to covet, each one is repeated in the New Testament. There is a flagrant and obvious exception in the fourth commandment: to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. The truth is asymmetric: four of the first five apply, and all five of the second five apply. While I yearn for symmetry, the fourth commandment is repealed according to the New Testament and the early church.
There are other examples of such asymmetries in Scripture, which does not remove the authority or poetry of God’s word. We have the twelve tribes, except that the tribe of Joseph splits into Ephraim and Manasseh; there are eleven and two half-tribes. The Levites’ tribe does not have a territory; this is not a tidy picture. In the New Testament, there are the twelve apostles, then eleven, then twelve again. When Paul comes as “one abnormally born” the chosen group totals thirteen apostles.
The above examples should reduce our discomfort with the incongruencies around the Ten Commandments, or the Decalogue. The most important instructions found in Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 6 are not in the Decalogue. Additionally, we have not just one version of the Ten Commandments, but two, or maybe three versions if we include Exodus 34. Consider also that the fourth commandment is the only particularly Jewish commandment.
We see irregularities biblically with various numbers, but also in nature and mathematics. The number of lunar cycles in a solar year is not even. A lunar cycle is normally less than one month, so the cycles do not fit roundly within a year. We have eight major planets and dwarf planets and other entities in our solar system. The Earth is the only one, as far as we know, that is inhabited. Would it be better if they were all inhabited or not? Mathematics has irrational numbers like π and e. You might argue for balance because it feels more pleasing to have all ten commandments, but the world is full of anomalies. Arguments from symmetry have an aesthetic appeal, but they have no logical power. Whether seven, nine, or ten commandments apply today, that must be determined by careful Bible study, not by preference for elegance or simplicity or tradition.
Christianity is a continuation and a fulfillment of Judaism, yet there is also a disjunction. In the new covenant, Christians did not have to observe circumcision, eat kosher, or stay in one land and go three times a year to Jerusalem. Even early Christian leaders had difficulty grasping how the new covenant relates to the old, and what to do with the Old Testament scriptures now that we have the inspired New Testament scriptures. The Sabbath, like many other Old Testament components, belongs to the world of shadows that faded once Christ came. We are called to embrace substance, reality—not shadow (Colossians 2:17). Living in Jesus today is fulfilling the Sabbath. It is a life of rest and peace in Christ, as well as a life of love in all we do.
Sabbath may not be required, even though we appreciate the theological principle. Hebrew informs us that there is still a sabbath for Christians, although it is not a weekly day of rest (Hebrews 4:9). We do not have to execute those who violate the Sabbath. We do not have to cease our work every seventh year. We do not return all acquired property every seven times seven years. Still, there is a spiritual principle for us to implement that hints at the freedom Moses brought when he led a slave nation out of bondage. We are not machines. Constant work crushes the spirit, wears us down. We need to set aside time for the Lord. For Torah-observing Jews, Sabbath (Shabbat) was a quiet family time, a time for prayer and study of the word, especially the Torah. That dominated the day. The Jerusalem Talmud, written a few centuries after Jesus, taught that the Sabbaths were given to Israel in order that they might study Torah. Setting aside a day each week to focus on family and Bible study rather than work is a wonderful idea. Shabbat is rest, yet not laziness. In the creation account, the Lord rests from his labor on the seventh day. The text does not say that God was tired or that he was not doing anything at all. Jesus said, “My Father is always at his work to this very day” (John 5:17). He is still working. The seventh day was rest, not laziness; devotion to God, not work. It was for study and prayer.
You may know people who truly believe that one day is more special than another, who hold the Sabbath as binding. Or they may have a view about Easter or a Jewish festival. Romans 14:4–6 guides us in these situations. To paraphrase, “Yes, we can proclaim the truth, but we do not have the right to judge someone else’s servant. We need to be gracious and understanding with those who have a different view about holy days.” We have seen abundant evidence that the early church did not observe the Sabbath as a Christian ordinance. That was part of the first covenant, but not the second.30
For years, I have heard people declaring that the words spoken by Jesus, the red-letter words in many editions of the Gospel accounts, are the most important ones in the New Testament. Some make this declaration and leave it at that, while others follow up by discounting the rest of the NT writings by the apostles and prophets. Paul’s writings are often especially discounted or totally dismissed using this approach. People who are offended by what he says about homosexuality and other “accepted” sins in our society are leading the parade in this regard.
Let me begin my observations by saying that we are at an all-time low in America of Bible reading and thus Bible knowledge. Many who claim to know the Bible know much of what they know from listening to or watching podcasts and other public communication mediums rather than digging into the biblical text on their own. The majority of those who appear to be very positive toward what Jesus said in person while on earth don’t really know much of what he did say. They know John 3:16 and a few more scattered passages but have little idea of what his overall teaching actually contains.
For example, he said that most people were going to hell and by comparison, few to heaven. Keep in mind as you read the following passage that these are all red-letter words.
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
A few verses later in the same context he said that claiming to be his follower, a Christian as we would term it, doesn’t make you one. Here are a few more red-letter words for your reading enjoyment.
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
You cannot do God’s will without knowing it. Where do you learn it? In the Bible, which is God’s only source containing his stated will. Is that will only stated in the red-letter words? Keep reading. By the way, why did Jesus utter these shocking words recorded in Matthew’s Gospel in the first place? The parallel passage in Luke’s account tells us he was responding to a question that would naturally arise, given his strong emphasis on God’s expectations of us.
Luke 13:22-23
“Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, ‘Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?’”
For those who have actually studied the Bible carefully for themselves, they know what Jesus taught about the narrow road and what it takes to be a disciple of his. It is not surprising at all that someone asked Jesus the above question. The earthly ministry of Jesus did not consist of him walking peacefully through the fields and meadows uttering nice little epigrams suitable for printing in Hallmark greeting cards. Far from it. He challenged people to the core of their beings and most rejected him and were only satisfied when he was on a cross bleeding for having delivered such direct challenges. But yes, we definitely need to be reading those red-letter words alright, because we are going to face them on the Day of Judgment.
John 12:48
“There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.”
What About the Black-Letter Words?
Are the words in Acts through Revelation not as important as the ones spoken directly by Jesus while on earth? Are they less inspired or perhaps not inspired at all? Let’s just ask Jesus and allow his red-letter words to answer that question for us.
John 14:25-26
“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
John 16:12-15
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
Do those quotes need explanation? Did the apostles have any question about being guided by the Holy Spirit to write just as authoritatively as Jesus spoke in person? That’s not what I read in passages like the following, written by the two most prominent apostles, one designated as the apostle to the Gentiles and the other as the apostle to the Jews.
Ephesians 3:2-5
“Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.”
2 Peter 1:19-21
“We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
By the way, Peter went on to refer to Paul’s writings by the term, “Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). The Bible has come under attack since it was written, but the attacks have increased in modern times as have the tragic consequences of Satan’s successes. My alarm system is increasing accordingly, especially since my age guarantees that I don’t have much time left to help us fight back. Satan’s simplest plan is to keep people from taking the Bible seriously, and if he can keep us from reading it, his plan will continue to work. If we do start reading it, the next part of his plan is to undermine trust in it, or at least some parts of it. Hence his strategy to confuse us about both red-letter words and black-letter words, the latter being in actuality “red-letter” words also from Christ through the Holy Spirit to the apostles and prophets.
Which Letters and Which Words—Moses or Christ?
Another part of Satan’s plan is to get our biblical focus misdirected. A current misdirection is to have us focus more and more on the Old Testament, oddly enough. At one time, the difference in the Mosiac and Christian covenants was well understood because people read the New Testament for themselves. Even a cursory reading of the book of Hebrews should bring us back to Christ and the new covenant as our primary focus. Paul’s goal as an inspired writer of thirteen books of the NT is made clear in the following passage.
Colossians 2:2-3
“My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
If ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, pray tell why are so many becoming more and more enamored with Moses and the Law? Sometime within the past year, a friend suggested that I tune in to a recorded video sermon by a guest speaker in one of the congregations in our family of churches. I did and listened very carefully. He spent the entire sermon focusing on an Old Testament passage that he admitted at the outset was impossible to understand with certainty (although he seemed pretty certain of his interpretation of it). Yet, because he is purported to be an OT scholar, people in the audience appeared to be spellbound as they listened. I was far from being spellbound. I was wondering where Jesus was and why I was spending my time listening to Moses being preached instead of Jesus.
What I Am Not Saying
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t study the OT. I’ve not only studied all of it in some depth and continue to read through it almost every year as a part of my Bible reading program, but I used to teach courses in OT at a Preacher’s School training full-time ministry students. One of my consistent courses taught was the Pentateuch, the first five books of the OT. In teaching it, I gave an assignment to my students on a document which was many pages long and involved digging out hundreds of details from the OT text.
In looking back on it, I think I made a mistake in asking them to examine the minutia of such details. One student, an excellent straight A student who was always very respectful with this one possible exception, said as he passed by me on the last day of the course, “This (holding up the long assignment document) had all the educational value of a roll of toilet paper!” He had been a public-school teacher prior to entering ministry training and I think his assessment was correct. Coming from him, it was also pretty funny at the time!
Since the NT is in the OT concealed and the OT is in the NT revealed, our study of the OT should be mostly limited to what is necessary to our understanding of the NT. We simply do not need in-depth study of the OT in all of its details that no longer are a part of the requirements of our new covenant with God. Those details would include hundreds of requirements about sacrifices, feast days, other special days (yes, including the Sabbath), food laws and other parts of the Mosiac covenant. If all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, we need to focus on him. Period.
Yes, the OT contains prophecies about Christ that Paul and others used to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, and yes, some of those prophecies were housed in typology pointing to Christ. Please keep in mind that the early teachers like Paul used these prophecies and typology in addressing Jews while trying to convert them, not Gentiles (unless they had joined themselves to the synagogue as Jewish proselytes or “God-fearers”). He decidedly was not simply teaching them the OT for edification!
The huge majority of those now claiming Christianity are Gentiles, having no Jewish roots at all. Therefore, to make the OT a major focus of our study is more than unwise; I believe it is an affront to Jesus. I can’t make this point better than Paul did in Colossians 2:17: “These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Why would we want to focus on studying shadows in the OT when we can study the realities of Christ stated in plain language in the NT?
More will be said about this concerning tendency among us in upcoming articles on my website, starting with one by my friend and fellow teacher, Douglas Jacoby. Watch for it. In the meantime, spend more time reading the NT for yourself, making notes, and digging deeply into the “red-letter” words of Jesus (in the entire New Testament). I am currently reading through the NT once a month, focusing on digging out the treasures of Jesus, and even after all these years, I continue to find new ones. Doing something similar would be a wonderful starting place for you too!
When we read the Gospel accounts, demon possession is mentioned a number of times. When Jesus and the apostles did miracles, one type was casting out demons. I have written at length explaining that miraculous gifts were limited to a first century setting and gave the reasons for that limitation. This material was originally included in Chapter Ten of my book, “Prepared to Answer,” and in a Second Edition, revised slightly. The revised chapter can be read as a stand-alone article on my website (gordonferguson.org) under the title, “A Study of Miraculous Gifts.”
Although demon possession and miraculous gifts of the Spirit are definitely related in the Gospels, they can be seen as separate topics. They can also be addressed as responses to two different questions. “Are miraculous gifts still operative today?” and, “Is demon possession still occurring today?” I have addressed the first question in the article, but now in this one I want to address the second.
Most Bible scholars believe that demon possession was a phenomenon that God allowed specifically during the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth, continuing during the time of the early church. It was a special way of demonstrating God’s power through his chosen leaders to convince those watching and hearing that these leaders were sent by him with his message. You find no mention of demon possession in the Old Testament, nor exorcism of demons, but you do find the presence of evil spirits, which is simply another term for demons. Demons are a reality and a part of Satan’s forces of evil used to influence humans to do and be evil. Their existence is not in question nor is their intent. What is in question is whether they possess people today like they did in the first century.
Demonology and Speculation
Demonology is a subject that historically is connected with more mythological theories than can be easily imagined. Theories of what demons are like and how they work is as varied as history’s theories of deity. The NT doesn’t give us much information about the origin of demons nor an explanation of their exact nature either. Therein we simply see what they did and how Jesus and the apostles spoke to the ones possessing humans and cast them out. Nothing is to be gained by speculation regarding areas not explained in the NT. Demons exist and they did possess humans during those early times. Sometimes their possession was associated with illnesses and sometimes not. Attributing illness or other calamity to demon possession today is nothing more than speculation and I believe a wrong one.
Bottom line, it seems best to relegate actual demon possession of the type found in the NT to a time when Jesus and the early disciples were performing a variety of miraculous works to confirm them as God-approved messengers of his new covenant. That new covenant began in spoken form by Jesus and the inspired apostles and prophets and ended up in written form, which we call the New Testament. Once the written form was completed, no further use of miraculous gifts was needed. With the death of the apostles and those upon whom they laid their hands to confer those miraculous gifts, they ceased. My article previously mentioned covers the miraculous stage of the church pretty thoroughly. If you still have questions, please read or reread that article.
It is also worth noting that the prevalence of demon possession and the casting out of demons is found much more in the ministry of Jesus than in the ministry of the apostles after Jesus ascended back into heaven. The Book of Acts has little mention of the exorcism of demons. The rest of the NT books beyond Acts contain no mention of this phenomenon at all. Even in the listing of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12, the casting out of demons is not found among them. Again, demon possession seems to be a phenomenon allowed by God especially for the ministry of Jesus and extending to the apostles as they carried on his ministry.
Another Related Possibility
That said, I do believe a type of demon possession might well be possible today, but a different type than we read about in the NT. In our present age, demons are constantly working to influence us for evil purposes. I have observed a few people who had given themselves over to Satan fully enough that they seemed to be completely controlled, or possessed, by demons. Even their facial features and the looks in their eyes seemed to be altered in very disturbing ways. But these were adults who had chosen to be influenced by Satan’s forces to sin, and then sinned long enough and deeply enough to be fully controlled or something close to it. Demonic influence seemed to progress to demonic control, which would be a type of demon possession. And yes, I did pray over them, shared Scriptures and reasoned with them, as with anyone caught up in sin. But this situation is different from what we find in the NT.
During Jesus’ ministry, you read about even children being possessed by demons. They had not fallen prey to temptation and sin, but they were unwillingly possessed by demons anyway. For example, look at this account:
Mark 9:20-22
20 So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. 21 Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. 22 “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”
Have I ever seen anything like this take place with a child? No. I’ve not seen anything like this take place with an adult, for that matter. What I have seen are a few adults who seemed to be so in the control of the forces of evil that it appeared to me that they were possessed. Therefore, the bigger issue for you and me is not focusing on demon possession as a special topic of interest, but on demon influence which is not a questionable matter at all. I want to stay as far away as possible from the temptations Satan provides, regardless of how and through whom he provides them, and avoid ever coming close to being controlled by him and his army of evil.
This last sentence is clearly the path to choose, while the overall subject of demonology in detail is not close to being clear in the Bible. Further speculations about the topic can easily create confusion and become a distraction (or worse). I have seen that happen. Being aware of Satan’s schemes and approaches is biblical; attempting to study him and his demons in depth as a topic is neither biblical nor helpful. I have offered my opinions about what might still be possible in our day, but I am labeling them as my opinions. Let’s just concentrate on doing what Paul admonished us to do as disciples in Ephesians 5:11: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness…” If you follow that inspired advice, you cannot become possessed by demons.
Taken from Chapter 10 of Prepared to Answer, Second Edition
Without question, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were very common in the early church as described in the New Testament. To the casual reader, the question would readily arise as to why these gifts would not be available and beneficial for today as well.
Purpose of Miraculous Gifts
In a word, the purpose of these gifts was to reveal and to confirm that the message of the early preachers and teachers was from God, and that these preachers and teachers were also God-sent. Just imagine yourself among those audiences of Jewish listeners described in the early chapters of Acts. Your Jewish training would have caused you to respect the written Word of God, the Scriptures, and to settle all issues of your life by it. Now you are listening to these early apostles and other preachers teaching that this controversial figure, Jesus Christ, has fulfilled the OT Scriptures, so you are no longer under their authority. However, these preachers have no written word from God containing this new message. In fact, no book of what we now call the NT will be written for about 20 years! Therefore, the challenge of leaving a written, time-tested covenant, to accept one which was only verbal at that point, would have been staggering for a Jew! That is, unless these new preachers could validate their claims with miracles.
In Mark 16:15-20, Jesus spoke of these miracles which were to confirm his message and messengers.
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
Hebrews 2:1-4 speaks clearly of the signs and wonders that were needed to confirm the word that was originally preached.
We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
It is vital to remember the background of the Jewish audiences (and later the Gentiles), and how it would have been difficult for them to accept the gospel (as yet unwritten) without these confirming miracles. Also, without the miraculous gifts, there would not even have been a message, for “prophecy” (speaking by inspiration from God) was one of these gifts. Some of the gifts were revelatory (they revealed God’s message) types, and some were confirmatory (they confirmed God’s message). When Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that the gifts were to be used to build up the body of Christ, he was referring primarily to the revelatory type of gifts. Since God’s revelation is now completed in written form, we can enjoy the same strengthening when this message is spoken by those with non-miraculous gifts of teaching and preaching.
For the gifts to have their desired effect, they would need to be obvious, even to unbelievers: and they clearly were, according to Acts 4:15- 16 and Acts 8:9-13. These were not the kind of alleged “miracles” which were attributable to other causes. Even the enemies of the early church could not deny that the miracles were real and totally amazing.
Furthermore, if the “tongues” were merely ecstatic utterances (unintelligible vocal sounds, as with modern claims), they would not have convinced anyone of anything, because ecstatic utterances were widely practiced in pagan religions long before the church was established. This fact is easily documented, and therefore such “tongues” would have done nothing to impress unbelievers with the truth of these messengers and their messages.
How the Gifts Were Received
The position that I have taken here is that the miraculous gifts in the NT times could only be passed on through the laying on of apostles’ hands. They had received a special measure of the Holy Spirit, which enabled them not only to possess these gifts, but to spread them to other Christians as the needs in the church dictated. A careful examination of the applicable passages will yield evidence that is quite compelling.
In Acts 2, although 120 believers may have been present, only the apostles spoke in tongues which were actually languages or dialects (glossa and dialekto in Greek). Note the following reasons: (1) in verse 1, “they” goes back to the nearest antecedent “the apostles” in 1:26; (2) in verse 7, all of the speakers were said to be Galileans. (Although the apostles were all chosen in Galilee, the setting for this occasion was in Judea, quite a distance away. Certainly, not all of the 120 would have been from Galilee.) (3) in verse 14, it specifically says that Peter stood up with “the Eleven”; (4) the question raised by those in the audience was addressed to Peter and the other apostles; (5) after baptism, those early disciples devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching; and lastly, (6) verse 43 tells us that the ongoing wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 2 also demonstrates that the “tongues” were understandable languages, not simply some kind of ecstatic utterances. In verse 6, the audience heard them speaking in their “own language.” The Greek word here is actually the word for dialect, which is even more specific. The same word indicating dialect is found in verse 8, where it is translated “own native language.” Then, in verse 11, it says that “they were declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues.” The Greek word for “tongues” here is glossa, the basic word for a language.
Between Acts 2 and Acts 6, all miracles were performed by apostles only. Then, in Acts 6:1-6, seven spiritual men were chosen to help with the distribution of food to widows, after which the apostles’ hands were laid on them (verse 6). Immediately afterwards, Stephen, one of the seven, did miracles (verse 8). This is the first mention in the Book of Acts of anyone besides the apostles doing any miracles. And it occurred right after the seven men received the laying on of the apostle’s hands! Philip, another of the seven, is the next person to perform miracles (Acts 8, beginning in verse 5). Although Philip could do powerful miracles, he could not pass on this gift to others, as verses 14-19 make clear.
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
Notice that Simon tried to buy this ability from the apostles, rather than from Philip, although Philip could do the miracles.
The apostle Paul also laid hands on those who then received miraculous abilities (Acts 19:1-7). When writing to the church at Rome, Paul mentioned that he wanted to impart some additional gift (Romans 1:11) by which the Roman Christians might be strengthened. When Romans 12 is compared with a very similar chapter discussing gifts in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 12), the difference in the nature of these gifts is striking. Notice in Romans 12 that the gifts in the body are all non-miraculous, except for prophecy. The parallel in 1 Corinthians 12 names many miraculous gifts. Paul planted the church at Corinth, and laid hands on many of the disciples; but when Romans was written, no apostle had yet been there. Therefore, one church had many who could do miraculous gifts, while the other church had very few (if any). Those few evidently had moved to Rome from other churches that had been planted by apostles.
How Long Were the Gifts to Last?
If the miraculous gifts came only through the laying on of apostles’ hands, they would cease when the apostles, and those on whom the apostles had laid their hands, had all died. Also, if the reason for the gifts was to reveal and confirm the message and the messengers, then when the message was delivered in written form, the need would have been met. By the time Paul had written his last inspired letter, he must have known that the Scriptures (which now included his own writing) would soon be completed, as the NT joined the OT in God’s complete revelation. These Scriptures would equip Timothy and all disciples for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
An important point to mention at this juncture is that the miraculous gifts accompanied new revelation. If the miracles are occurring today, as the Pentecostals claim, where and what is the new revelation? The Mormons actually claim that their additional books are confirmed by their practice of miraculous gifts. The proponents of the Holiness Movement, then, should not reject the Mormon writings, but they do. Now that the message has been revealed and confirmed and committed to writing (the NT), the written descriptions of the miracles do for us today what the actual miracles did for them in that day (John 20:30-31):
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
If the written descriptions of the miracles are sufficient to produce faith in man, which leads to salvation, just what else would we need? Actually, Jesus recognized a greater degree of faith in us who have not seen these things personally but have accepted the Word’s testimony:
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:27-29).
Some claim that miracles are still needed today in order to confirm the Scriptures for us. This overlooks the fact that the Scriptures have already been confirmed and can now produce saving faith in us (John 20:31; Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:3-5). Also, according to Romans 1:4, Jesus was confirmed to be God’s Son by the resurrection. If miracles are needed in each generation to reconfirm the Scriptures, then every generation would also need another resurrection of Jesus to reconfirm him as God’s Son! Certainly, the Scriptures have been confirmed adequately, and they carry within themselves their own self-authenticating miracles. Besides these obvious and necessary logical conclusions, 1 Corinthians 13:10 (which we will explore later in this chapter) predicted the ending of the miraculous gifts.
Miraculous Gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14
Enumeration. The church at Corinth had problems with their attitudes toward, and use of, spiritual gifts. A particular problem was their pride in exercising the somewhat “showy” gift of tongues. Paul corrected their problems by demonstrating the proper way to view and use these gifts. In chapter 12, he gave the enumeration (listing) of the gifts; in chapter 13, the duration of the gifts; and in chapter 14, the regulation of these gifts for as long as they were to be in effect. Importantly, the church at Corinth provides conclusive evidence that the presence of the gifts, even in abundance, was no guarantee that the Christians would be spiritual. In fact, this church seemed to have more gifts than any other mentioned in the NT, and yet these disciples were about the least spiritual of any mentioned! The modern claim that the truly spiritual people get the gifts flatly contradicts what we see in the NT.
The enumeration of the gifts is found in 12:8-10. They were as follows:
-
- the message of wisdom
- the message of knowledge
- faith (evidently of a miraculous type)
- gifts of healing
- miraculous powers
- prophecy
- distinguishing between spirits
- tongues
- the interpretation of tongues
In verses 29-30, Paul asks some rhetorical questions: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” Clearly, not everyone had the same gifts. Specifically, all did not speak with tongues, contrary to charismatic teaching. Furthermore, verse 30 shows that a non-miraculous gift is greater than the miraculous. Thus, Paul leads into chapter 13 with the call for every person, above all else, to exhibit love.
Duration. The duration of the gifts is described in chapter 13, in a context which depicts the superiority of love. Tongues, without love, were worthless. Prophecy, without love, was and is worthless. Knowledge, without love, was and is worthless. Faith, without love, was and is worthless. Giving, without love, was and is worthless. Even a sacrificial death without love is worthless (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Notice that tongues, prophecy, knowledge and faith, in the context of the preceding chapter, are all miraculous gifts. Then, in chapter 13 verses 4-7, Paul describes real love (the “agape” type), as contrasted with their spiritual immaturity and erroneous use of gifts.
Next, in verses 8-10, Paul shows that love will continue when the gifts have fulfilled their purpose and ceased.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
This passage says plainly that prophecy, tongues and knowledge were going to cease. Furthermore, they were only partial in their effects (verse 9). For example, a prophet could give only a partial message at any one time (see 14:29-32). He could not state all aspects of a subject, as we can today, through the use of a completed Word—the OT and NT.
Then, in verse 10, the partial gifts were said to last until perfection came. Just what was the “perfection”? It is not Christ, for the Greek term is neuter in gender, whereas it would be masculine if it were referring to him. It is not love, because love is feminine in gender. Notice that the “perfection” will take the place of the “partial.” Since the partial gifts mentioned here are all revelatory gifts, then the perfection must have to do with revelation. Otherwise, it could not replace the partial. Therefore, the perfection (or complete, from “telios” in Greek) must at least include a completed revelation, which would end the need for miraculous gifts. Our earlier study has shown this to be a logical conclusion of a completed revelation, and now this passage has demonstrated the validity of such a conclusion.
We now can turn to a written and “perfect” law of liberty (according to James 1:25) which employs the same Greek word as that in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Paul’s argument is a warning against being so enamored with gifts that are temporary anyway. He urges concentration on love, for it will always be with us. While it is tempting to say that the perfect in verse 10 is simply the completed NT revelation, the text doesn’t demand such a limitation; the context suggests that more may be involved and logic would say that more must be involved. The real purpose of these three chapters in 1 Corinthians, as already noted, was to deal with worldly pride and immaturity in their view and the use of miraculous gifts.
Having a completed revelation does not rule out pride and immaturity, although it surely would help in their case. What does rule it out is maturity and spirituality. Thus, in our verse under examination, it seems best to focus on the cessation of gifts (especially their misuse and abuse) as Paul’s plan for their maturation process—when love would reign supreme and disunity be dispelled. He uses similar wording in Ephesians 4:11-16, when unity based on maturity was to rule out being tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching. Certainly, the completed revelation would be a part of that, as it would in 1 Corinthians 13:10, which would help eliminate immaturity based on pride. Just knowing that the gifts were partial, temporary and inferior to love would help the hearts and attitudes to change. This interpretation fits the context in showing that the partial, miraculous gifts were to cease, but keeps the real focus on maturing in love and respect for one another. The completed NT in writing was not incidental to Paul’s purpose in writing, but neither was it his main focus.
Regulation. The regulation of the miraculous gifts is found in chapter 14. As long as these gifts did remain in effect, they needed to be exercised with God’s restraints. Prophecy was a much greater gift than tongues because it was understood much more easily (verses 1-19). Some find a supposed basis for ecstatic utterances in verses like verse 2: “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” If one only read verse 2, such an interpretation would seem possible. However, verse 2 could also be explained as being a situation where a person was speaking a real language which neither he nor anyone in the audience understood. Thus, it would be a mystery to everyone present except God.
The above explanation is in perfect accord with the context of the discussion, as verses 22-23 show:
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
It is true that just knowing that God was speaking such a language through someone would provide some building up for them (verse 4). However, it would not do anyone else real good unless someone present had the gift of interpretation (see verses 5, 13, 27, 28, in this regard). This explanation takes into account all other considerations which we have studied, such as the meaning of “glossa”—a language—whereas the ecstatic utterance position does not.
In verses 26-40, the specific regulations for using the supernatural gifts in the first-century assemblies are outlined. Everything in the assembly was to be done for strengthening the hearers (verse 26). When tongues were being used, three people at the most could speak, one at a time, and only if an interpreter were present. If no interpreter was present, no tongues could be spoken (verses 27-28)! Two or three prophets would speak, one at a time, only until the next prophet received a revelation, and then the speaker had to stop and sit down (verses 29-33). Note that in verse 12, a warning is given against getting “carried away” and saying that you could not stop because you were “in the Spirit.”
Women were to be silent in the assemblies, not being permitted to speak (verses 34-35). As we discuss in Appendix III, these women were most likely the wives of the inspired speakers in the service. The wives were interrupting their husbands, and in doing so, were disrupting a service which was to be conducted in an orderly manner. Paul then warns people against over-reacting and forbidding certain people with the gift to speak in tongues entirely. However, they were to be careful about keeping within these regulations as long as the gifts were operative (verses 39-40).
In view of the foregoing biblical consideration, the charismatic movement today is not based on the Holy Spirit’s activity. Although its adherents are often well-intentioned and sincere, it is a movement based on emotionalism. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to promote truth in a spirit of gentleness and love. May God help us to help others who have been misled in this area of exercising so-called spiritual gifts!