The following is a review of the aforementioned book:

'Man and Woman - a study of Biblical roles - a review

Christadelphian commitment to Bible teaching frequently causes us to be at odds with the churches and with the wider community. While we strive to "live peaceably with all men" and do not deliberately set out to create tension with others, it is inevitable we will find ourselves out of step with the views of others who do not hold the Bible in such high regard. Full immersion baptism is one example of faithfulness to Bible teaching, which has led to us being out of step with most of the churches; the upholding of Biblical values in relation to marriage and inter-personal relationships is an example of where we find ourselves out of step with the wider community. Since our foundation in the nineteenth century, Bible teaching on the role of men and women within the body of Christ is an area in which we have usually been at odds with the views of the wider community. Although those who helped mould the practices of our community in its early days were men and women firmly rooted in Victorian times (some like Brother Thomas in Georgian times!) they did not allow the prevailing views and values of the world around them to deter them from applying Biblical principles in relation to gender roles and status. The New Testament highlights the valuable work of sisters. They laboured with Paul in the gospel (Phil. 4:3) and likewise ministered to the needs of our Lord (Luke 8:2-3); they served the ecclesia in a range of ways (Rom. 16:1-3), and even exercised prophetic gifts (Acts 21:9). Sisters were highly regarded in the first century ecclesia, which recognised that male and female were "all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). From the inception of the Christadelphian community, in accordance with the principle of Galatians 3:28, sisters have been regarded as full and equal members of the ecclesia. Our early brothers and sisters recognised that (oneness of the sexes in terms of salvation in Christ notwithstanding) the New Testament clearly restricted formal instruction in the ecclesia to brothers. Apart from this provision, they could see no Scriptural reason for suppressing sisters. For instance, although it was recognised as a less than perfect model, the early brethren adopted democratic processes for the election of those who would serve the ecclesia; sisters enjoyed full voting rights even though in the wider community they were not entitled to the franchise.

In Diary of a Voyage (page 142) Brother Roberts comments on questions that had arisen in the Dunedin Ecclesia about the extent to which the views of sisters ought to be taken into account when making decisions. Having made the point that no one was suggesting that sisters should engage in public speaking, Brother Roberts went on to advise: "You can no more suppress a wise woman's influence and a wise woman's voice, than you can suppress the law of gravitation. You may prevent her delivering a public address: but you cannot prevent her giving good counsel, and you ought not." Such views were not reflective of those of the wider community, where the majority at that time did not regard the views of women so highly or worthy of such consideration. Times change, however, and the values of western society change with them. Practices and principles that a few generations ago were regarded as beyond the pale are now routinely tolerated. Among those values that have changed have been those connected with the role of men and women in society. A generation ago wage differentials between men and women were enforced by legal instruments, women did not enjoy the ease of access to credit from banks that was extended to men, and females were excluded from conscription. These and many other gender-based distinctions have been swept away in the wake of government-endorsed programs to establish equality between the sexes.

These changes in the world have been reflected in many of the churches, which have made provision for women to exercise roles formerly restricted to men. Some voices within the brotherhood have called for the Christadelphian community to follow this trend and likewise eliminate gender distinctions for leadership and instruction roles we have always restricted to brothers. But while it is obvious that the wider community has changed in this area, there has been no change in the Bible's teaching on the subject and therefore there is no need to revisit Bible teaching on the subject. In 1989 and 1990 Brother Michael Lewis responded to the challenge of feminist theology and its influence on the brotherhood in a series of articles published in The Testimony. They were later collated, revised and published in book form under the title MAN & WOMAN - A Study of Biblical Roles.

Commencing in the Old Testament to establish the foundations, Bro Lewis adopts a systematic and Biblical approach to the subject. He then addresses key New Testament passages -- 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 2-many of which appeal directly to the Old Testament, and demonstrates the importance of interpreting these passages in the light of the Old Testament passages on which they are founded. He comments on the nexus between domestic relationships between men and women in the family and the ecclesia. Particular attention also is paid to the subject of head coverings and their relevance in the ecclesia. Brother Michael highlights that the Biblical prohibition on sisters exercising leadership in the ecclesia does not mean their contribution to the spiritual health and growth of the ecclesia is diminished. He notes many avenues of service in which sisters may exercise their talents, in many of which they excel. These are not restricted to traditional female roles of nurturing and caring, such as care of the elderly and other welfare work, important though these tasks are.

Teaching is one area in which sisters play an active role. Titus 2 exhorts the older sisters to teach the younger sisters. This advice has been applied since pioneer times in the establishment of sisters' classes. But teaching by sisters is not limited to sisters' classes. In most ecclesias sisters are stalwarts of the Sunday School work -- surely our most successful preaching exercise. In the mission fields their work is invaluable¹, not just in supporting their fellow-sisters but also in witnessing to women with a hunger for the gospel. There are many cultures where it is inappropriate for a woman to engage in conversation with a man she does not know well. Our sisters can step into this breach. A feature of Brother Michael's book is discussion of the practical considerations of the subject. While the exposition of the relevant passages is not without some challenges, the broad apostolic intent is relatively clear. Application of those principles in daily life, however, is not always so clear. A head covering is one such issue that receives attention in this regard. Having presented the scriptural teaching, Brother Michael encourages the reader to consider how this should be applied in the ecclesia. He acknowledges there will be differences of opinion, for instance about the suitability of certain kinds of headcoverings and the need for them at certain meetings. Clearly, when seeking to uphold the Bible's teaching, each needs to be persuaded in their own mind and then prayerfully seek to exercise their conscience while having regard to the conscience of others. Many brothers and sisters feel challenged by calls for changes in ecclesial practice that reflect the changes in western society in relation to men and women.

There is potential for tension within and between ecclesias if opposing interpretations are promoted and applied. It behoves each brother and sister to carefully consider the Biblical role of men and women and Brother Michael Lewis' book is heartily recommended as a useful tool in such a consideration. Those who would strive to be constituents of the bride of Christ can ill afford to misunderstand the role of men and women in ecclesial life.

Geoff Henstock'

This review was first published in the Lampstand November - December 2007 no. 359.
http://www.csss.org.au/man-and-woman-a-study-of-biblical-roles-a-review-en.html ²

'IF

The following summary centres on the word 'if'. Why? Because if the Bible had been written along different lines on this issue, then perhaps non-traditional views could have been accommodated in ecclesial life. It is doubtful if many modern brothers in Christ would object to sisters participating in those roles traditionally assigned to men if that is what the Word of God taught. Most men will have been taught by female teachers in the education system, they will have gone through primary, secondary and tertiary education with females, they will have worked alongside women in their field of employment and many at some stage will have had a female superior in their chosen career. Many Christadelphian males have had the same experience so it is unlikely that by nature they would be averse to the idea of sisters sharing the same roles as them. But the issue is not social it is spiritual. What does the word of God say?

The crux of the matter is simple: are we going to obey what God says in His Word or not?

Even if we fail to understand why God has chosen to order things in the way He has and even if we do not like what He in His wisdom has decreed, we still have to obey.

A huge amount of time, expense and energy has been invested in attempting to persuade Christians of all kinds that the Bible teaches that men and women can perform the same roles in the 'church'. Some in the ecclesial world have drawn upon many of the arguments that have been presented to the churches, to persuade Christadelphians towards the same view.

If the Bible had been written differently then this view may have been accepted but as the following summary demonstrates, the Bible evidence negates it completely.

In Genesis we are told that Adam was created first, Eve second, therefore Paul says Adam was her head and he had authority over her. Eve came from Adam not Adam from Eve therefore Paul says the woman was created for the man not the man for the woman. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God from the dust. Eve was in the image and likeness of God because being created out of Adam she was in Adam's image. So the Apostle says that the woman is the glory of the man. Adam was told to till the garden, name the animals and was given the law prohibiting the tree of good and evil and told of the consequences of breaking it. The sequence of events shows that this was before Eve was created. God could have created them both from the dust and given them both the same instructions at the same time. Eve was deceived into sin and therefore Paul says women are not to teach baptised men in an ecclesial setting. Adam was not deceived but he still sinned. His was the final responsibility for sin and death entering the world. This meant that another man (the second Adam) would have the responsibility of bringing righteousness and life into the world. Adam's position of responsibility was seen in his being called first by God to give an account after the fall and judged last in being given the words of expulsion from the garden and the pronouncement of judgement in the form of mortality. Adam's authority over Eve was partly seen in his naming her Eve i.e. 'the mother of all living', they did not name each other. Adam's cleaving unto his wife set the pattern for men in the future. Eve's curse in part was that her husband would rule over her, not the reverse. The man, not the woman, is told to take the initiative by leaving mother and father to establish a family. It is Cain and Abel, not female members of the family who lead the way in establishing grazing and farming respectively and it is through them that tragic historical events unfold. Leadership and initiatives in inventiveness (good and bad) belong to Cain, Enoch, Jubal, Tubal-Cain and other men not their wives. The genealogical table of Genesis 5 is comprised of male names and indeed, all genealogical tables with the exception of a few female names in various places, are comprised of male names throughout the Bible. It is Noah, not his wife, who is chosen, spoken to by God and directed to build the ark. Only Noah's sons are named as the heads of the three great branches of humanity following the flood and it is they, not their wives, who are spoken to by God. It was Abram, not Sarai, who received the call when in Ur of the Chaldees. God gave the promises through Abram not Sarai. Abram was blessed by Melchizedek the priest, he was not blessed by a priestess. The three angels who visited Abraham spoke to and through him, not Sarah. The angels who visited Sodom spoke to Lot as the head of the family, not his wife who is not even named. Abraham, not Sarah, was instructed to build altars and offer sacrifices and to sacrifice Isaac. The promises are carried through Isaac and Jacob (Israel). It is Esau and Jacob who are the heads of their respective families. Israel and his sons, not their wives, become the heads of the people of Israel. Each tribe bears their names not their wives' names. The events of the last chapters of Genesis centre on Joseph through whom God saved Jacob (Israel), his sons and their families. Joseph became not only the leader of the children of Israel he was second in charge of Egypt. Despite all of the influence of women such as Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Dinah and Tamar, all leadership and (with the exception of Eve and Hagar both of whom were spoken to directly) all major communication by God in Genesis was to/through men.

Although in Exodus women such as the midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, Moses' mother Jochebed, Miriam and Moses' wife did remarkable things, authority and leadership belonged to the men. Moses and Aaron were commissioned by God to speak to Pharaoh, conduct the plagues and lead Israel out of Egypt. In the absence of Moses, the people turned to Aaron, not Miriam, in the incident of the golden calf. It was Aaron and his sons who were made the priests, not their wives, sisters or daughters. Bezalel and Aholiab were inspired to direct the building of the tabernacle. The heads of the family of Moses and Aaron listed in Exodus 6 are all males.

In Leviticus we see the ordination of Aaron and his sons, not Aaron's wife and his daughters (ch 8). In chapter 10, although Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu failed, they were replaced by Eleazar and Ithama not any of their sisters. Chapter 27 marks a difference between male and female vow payments.

In Numbers the census commanded by God is in terms of the men who were the descendants of each of the sons of Israel (except Levi) twenty years old and able to serve in the army (ch 1). The count of the Levites only included the men, as did the count of the Kohathite, Gershonite and Merarite branches of the Levites (ch 3). The offerings for the dedication of the tabernacle were given by the male heads of each of the other tribes (ch 7). The marching order of the tribes was under the leadership of the male heads (ch 10). The seventy chosen to assist Moses in the governing of Israel were all men. Please note that they were tribal leaders before being given the Spirit of God to assist them in the work. They were not leaders as a result of receiving the Spirit. In chapter 12, Miriam and Aaron challenge Moses' leadership but soon learn the lesson that they must submit to the leader God has chosen. Korah, Dathan and Abiram learn the same lesson later (ch 16). The twelve spies chosen were men (ch 13). Men led the rebellion that resulted from the spies' report (ch 14). Only the men of the tribe of Levi are to act as priests and their assistants (ch 18). Despite the weaknesses of Israelite male leadership that were on display in Moab; in the second census, leadership remained with the male tribal leaders. Even the apparent exception to this rule of the daughters of Zelophehad (chs 26, 27, 36 and Joshua 17) was for the purpose of keeping their father's inheritance and his name alive in Israel. The leaders appointed to assign the inheritance of each tribe were all men (ch 34).

In Deuteronomy, Joshua is appointed to replace Moses and it is under Joshua's leadership that the conquest of the land and the distribution of tribal inheritance under male, not female, names take place.

In Judges all of Israel's judges, except for Deborah, are male. Male leadership therefore remains even though this period threw up some appalling examples of male behaviour and weakness when every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Ruth centres on the story of the lovely and spiritual Moabitess but although the book is about her, her marriage is dependent upon the influential and wealthy Boaz who was her kinsman-redeemer and whose name actually appears more times than Ruth's in the book. Leadership belongs to Boaz not Ruth.

In 1 and 2 Samuel we all appreciate Hannah's vital place in Israel's history. Her prayer for a son and the offering of that son, Samuel, to God, laid the foundation for the work of Israel's greatest judge. Yet despite the importance of many Israelite women, Yahweh appointed males as priests and monarchs of Israel. Samuel looked only among Jesse's sons for Israel's next king after Saul. If a priest or monarch failed to do his duty (such as the priest, Eli, along with his sons and King Saul), God replaced them, not with priestesses and female monarchs, but with other priests and other male monarchs.

In 1 and 2 Kings all of the monarchs were male (except for the usurper Athaliah). God appointed David and promised him an eternal dynasty, all members of which were male. Monarchs in the separatist northern kingdom were all male, designated by male prophets and popularly acclaimed by the male commanders of the army. If Israel or Judah had queens such as Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Boudicca of the Celts or the queen of Sheba, then we may have some reason for rethinking the traditional view.

The same choice of kings applied in the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles that cover the same historical period. Other nations had some queens but Judah and Israel only had kings. The genealogical lists of the early chapters of the first book are comprised of male names. The lists of the priests and Levites, those in charge of the singers, the gatekeepers, treasury and other officials, army divisions, officers of the tribes and the king's overseers are all men. David's unfortunate numbering (census) of Israel in chapter 21 of the first book only involved males twenty years and older.

In Ezra the leaders of the returning exiles Jeshua and Zerubbabel and the returning heads of families, priests and Levites are all males. The same applies to the second group of returnees under the leadership of Ezra the priest. Leadership remained male even though much of the male leadership had introduced corruption into Israel by marrying foreign wives.

The same pattern continues in Nehemiah where we have the lists comprised of males who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. Apart from a reference to the daughters of Shallum son of Hallohesh ruler of Jerusalem, it is not until chapter 5 that we read of Jews and their wives and daughters who were suffering at the hands of other greedy Jews. In 7:67 we read of the female singers, in 8:2 the women gather with the men to listen to the words of Ezra and in 12:43 the men rejoice with their wives and children. However, there is not the slightest hint of female leadership in either the narrative or the numerous lists of people given the responsibility of overseeing the work of restoration. This is not to suggest that the women/wives did not play a vital part in the work it is just that their responsibilities were different.

What of the book of Esther? Sometimes Esther is promoted as a female leader. After all she was the queen of Xerxes the most powerful monarch in the world at that time. But apart from her ability to influence Xerxes, she had no power at all in a political sense. In fact when she set out to influence him in favour of the Jews, had Xerxes not loved her as he did or had his mood been different, the story could have had a tragic ending. It was Mordecai who had the capacity to orchestrate the Jewish response to the threat of Haman. Esther had no capacity to do this at all. The number of times Mordecai's name appears in the book is slightly higher than that of Esther's, thus illustrating the importance of his leadership role.

Throughout the O.T. we see the work of the prophets. As we have seen there were a number of prophetesses - Deborah, Miriam, Huldah - as well as a handful of others who are mentioned. Their work was important but we should avoid overstating their importance in Israel's history and in the Word of God generally. The O.T. books were all written by prophets, not prophetesses. Almost all of the great events of O.T. history centre on the prophets from Moses to Malachi. It is they through whom God performed great miracles; it is they who challenged moral and spiritual corruption in Israel; it is they who suffered because of their message; it is they through whom God gave us the vision of His Kingdom and prophesied the coming of Messiah. These are towering figures of faith whose example and influence pervades Old and New Testament teaching and history. Important prophetesses there were, but we need to keep the magnitude of their influence on O.T. history, in comparison to the prophets, in perspective.

The "wife of noble character" in Proverbs 31 exemplifies the importance of a good wife in that era. But do her qualities mean that she had a position of leadership in what was the ecclesia in those times? No. It is her husband who occupies that place.

"Her husband is respected in the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land."

The N.T. opens with the work of one "greater than all the prophets" John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Lord Jesus Christ. His mighty work of "making the crooked straight and the rough places plain" drew many disciples to him some of whom were still maintaining his teachings in the time of Paul.

Faithful women played important, even vital roles in the ministry of the Lord - Elisabeth, Mary the Lord's mother, Anna the prophetess, the Samaritan woman at the well, Martha and Mary, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James. Of these we remember those who stood at the cross, who went to anoint the Lord's body and who were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Yet as important as these women were, they were not leaders and teachers, and apart from Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the mother of John Mark, not one of them is mentioned again by name outside the gospels and certainly they do not appear in leadership or teaching roles anywhere in the developing ecclesias. Centre stage was occupied by John the Baptist, the Lord himself and the twelve Apostles. Judas was replaced by another male; Matthias. And Paul became the thirteenth Apostle. The point has already been made that when Paul went to Jerusalem and met the pillars of the Jerusalem ecclesia, they were all males.

If at Pentecost the crowds listening had addressed the speakers as men and women then we may have had cause to rethink at least some aspects of the traditional view. Or if the seven chosen to 'serve tables' had included three or four women, that fact would at least force us to qualify the traditional position. Surely such an internal ecclesial appointment would not have created a major clash with 1st Century Jewish culture. Instead, we have no choice but to conclude that leadership was not given to sisters in the ecclesias.

Other women are given honourable mention in Acts and the letters - Tabitha, Priscilla, Lydia, Chloe, Mary of Rome, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, Synteche, Phoebe, Claudia - but in comparison to the way in which the male overseers and teachers of the ecclesias are presented in these records, it is wrong to promote these, albeit exceptional sisters in Christ, to the same leadership and teaching roles as the men. Oversight of the ecclesias and evangelism devolved upon men, such as Peter, John, James the Just, James the Lord's brother, the other Apostles, Stephen, Philip and the other five who 'wait on tables', Paul, John Mark, Luke, Silas, the spirit appointed elders in the ecclesias, also Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, Philemon, Crescens, Carpus, Onesiphorus, Erastus and Triphemus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and others.

If the Corinthians had said 'I am of Mary' or 'I am of Priscilla' or 'I am of' any of the other females, we may have had cause to rethink the traditional stand.

If those passages that speak specifically about male/female roles in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and 1 Timothy 2 had said something like:

"Man is not the head of the woman" and "Each man and woman who prays or prophesies with his or her head covered dishonours his or her head" and "Although man did not come from woman, but woman from man; and woman was created for man, they should nevertheless be mutually submissive" and "This is what we practise along with all the other ecclesias".

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women do not have to remain silent in the ecclesias. They are allowed to speak and do not have to be submissive as the Law says" and "[Women] enquiring about something 'in ecclesia' is acceptable" and "What I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

"I permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man; Even though Adam was formed first then Eve. And although Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner, she does not have to be silent."

If Ephesians 5 had said:

"Wives, do not have to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is not the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body.... Now although the church submits to Christ, wives should not submit to their husbands in everything…the wife does not have to respect her husband."

"Husbands, there is no need to love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... husbands do not have to love their wives as their own bodies…each one of you does not have to love his wife as he loves himself...."

If 1 Peter 3 had said:

"Wives, you do not have to be submissive to your husbands.... For this is the way the holy women of the past ... were not submissive to their husbands, like Sarah, who disobeyed Abraham and refused to call him her master."

"Husbands, you do not have to be considerate as you live with your wives, and you do not have to treat them with respect because they are not the weaker partner."

Although such commands would be out of step with Bible history we could be more comfortable with the idea of sameness of roles. But this is not what Paul and Peter said and what they did say goes hand-in-glove with Biblical history.

If these passages did read this way, there would be no need for non-traditionalists to generate a range of excuses to explain away the Apostles' teachings in these and other parts of Scripture. Nowhere in the N.T. are men in general called on to submit to their wives, be silent and not speak because it is disgraceful to do so and to be submissive in the ecclesia, to ask questions at home, obey their wives, told that woman is their head, told not to teach or exercise authority over a woman or advised that man is the glory of the woman.

If the Lord himself had said in the Sermon on the Mount:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago that the holy women were to be submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham, but I tell you that women no longer have to be submissive...."

then we would have a clear indication of change. But such is not the case.

As we should expect, in harmony with O.T. practice there were prophetesses in the N.T., but again in harmony with the O.T. pattern, their influence should not be overplayed. Anna is the only N.T. prophetess actually named, Philip's daughters prophesied and others also had the gift of prophecy. However, along with the Apostles themselves, only male prophets and teachers are named and we only see males such as Barnabas, Judas, Silas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen and Agabus in action. As was the case with the writing of the O.T., our Heavenly Father only chose males to write the gospels, the Acts and the letters of the N.T.

Where is the canonical³ Gospel According to Mary Magdalene? Where are the examples of the 50% of female leaders in the supposed 'all one' N.T. world expounding the Scriptures to their respective ecclesial gatherings? Where is there an Epistle of Priscilla to Ephesus or elsewhere? Where were the leading female speakers at the Jerusalem conference? Where were the female pillars of the Jerusalem ecclesia when Paul visited Jerusalem? If we accept the Apostles' words, the answer to these questions is obvious. If we reject those same words or rationalise them away, we are left with an unexplained mystery.

It is only males who are specifically described performing miraculous signs and wonders e.g. Acts 2:43; 3:6-8; 5:3-10, 12-16; 6:8, 15; 8:4-7, 13, 42; 9:17-18; 13:6-12; 14:3, 8-11; 15:12; 16:16-18, 25-28; 19:11-12; 20:9-12; 28:3-6. This should not surprise us because this is a pattern that again parallels the circumstances of the O.T.

The N.T. calls men to be heads, exercise authority and teach in ecclesia and family and calls on women to be supportive. Nowhere does the N.T. call for these roles to be reversed.

It is a consistent phenomenon in Scripture that apart from very few references (for example Priscilla, Eve, Miriam, Huldah), males are always mentioned before females. Even the animals as they entered the ark two by two (typifying salvation) are referred to as male then female. Although in Paul's salutations in his letters a number of women are referred to without reference to husbands (assuming they had husbands), women are generally identified by reference to their husband's name.

If such a radical change in the role of women had occurred then it is certain that there would have been an outcry from the Judaizers against it but the N.T. record is completely silent. What were 'new' teachings to the Jews, such as giving the Gentiles direct access to salvation through the gospel, the end of the Old Covenant/Law of Moses signified by the end of unclean meats, Sabbath keeping, circumcision etc., caused a strong reaction from the Jewish authorities and serious conflict with Judaizing Christians in the ecclesial world in the 1st Century. But the supposed issue of a change of role for women did not even cause a ripple among the Jews.

If the roles of men and women were the same and women were given oversight of the ecclesias alongside men, we would expect this situation to continue immediately after the Apostles passed off the scene. However, there is no evidence that it did. Forced attempts are made to place women in leadership roles but the reality is that males are the leaders and teachers in the early ecclesias and in the later rapidly-developing, institutionalised church. Church councils were all male and even the writings of the early church 'fathers' support what has come to be accepted as the traditional view of this subject. The great doctrinal battles of the post-apostolic era were fought out between leading churchmen, not churchwomen. As we have seen before, there are copious writings by ante-Nicene church 'fathers' but none by ante-Nicene church 'mothers'.

Our fundamental teachings are based on what the Bible says about each of those teachings from Genesis to Revelation. If we were to abandon these teachings because of a few inherently difficult passages that on the surface appear to run counter to the consistent thread of teaching throughout Scripture, we would never arrive at a foundation necessary to provide the faith, hope and true fellowship that we enjoy in Christ.⁴

Conclusion

Why entitle this chapter 'If'? Because if the Bible had presented a different story to the one outlined here, ecclesial roles and arrangements could also have been different. But this is what the Bible teaches, so we need to embrace its teaching and not attempt to rationalise its plain meaning to match the contemporary philosophies of our social and political environment.

This then is the big picture that the Bible presents. Therefore, if we are going to expound the Scriptures accurately, our interpretations of any disputed, specific passages should be in harmony with this.'

The preface agrees with Bro Colin, as you might expect.

God Christ Man Woman -

'Preface

As Colin Byrnes demonstrates in this book, a broadly consistent model of ecclesial administration is evident throughout the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. Divinely ordained roles and levels of responsibility have been established and the saints in all ages are required to serve and rejoice within that model.

The principles of God are often at odds with the standards and philosophies of the world about us - it has been so since patriarchal times. In many parts of the western world all formal distinctions between men and women have, as far as possible, been removed. In other places women are treated as second-class citizens, subject to unreasonable restrictions and legal constraints. The standards of the society within which the saints are pilgrims, however, have little relevance to the conduct of ecclesial life. The Scriptures alone must guide the ecclesia. The logic of man might suggest that there are better ways in which we could operate, but we do well to heed the message of Proverbs 14:12:

'there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.'

Ordinary men and women not just academics or theologians can understand the Bible. True, there are layers of meaning and hidden gems that reward diligent students, but the broad meaning of the gospel is accessible to ordinary readers - often with a clarity which eludes more critical readers. Some passages do present challenges. We should always be wary, however, of interpretations that impose a meaning, which is not consistent with the meaning that would be drawn by a reader without special training or instruction. That applies to verses about the roles of brothers and sisters in Christ as much as to any other subject. Colin's scholarly and methodical analysis of passages that relate to this theme will assist readers who may be struggling to understand these verses within the framework of the Bible's overall teaching.

We rejoice that the Bible teaches there is no distinction between women and men in terms of value, spirituality, salvation or destiny. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that Christ and his apostles established clear functional differences when it comes to teaching and leadership of the assembled ecclesia. The New Testament says sisters should not exercise formal teaching or leadership roles in ecclesial meetings but, these two restrictions aside, it makes it clear that they should make full use of their teaching and other skills in spreading the gospel, strengthening the ecclesial community, instructing their fellow sisters, nurturing and educating children. All ecclesial members must take advantage of the abundant opportunities God provides to use their gifts in accordance with the divine will and with the objective of glorifying Almighty God. This book will assist faithful readers to that end.

Geoff Henstock'

Some of Sis. Robin's graphics show men with their heads covered and women uncovered, which contradicts New Testament teaching of what they were to do in ecclesia, though males wearing garments that covered their head, may represent social norms of the day, just as males wear caps or hats today, but not in the ecclesia. Paul tells them not to do so when praying or prophesying.

She says there is no law in the Old Testament which says what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:34, but the law is in Gen. 3:16 and in the total history of Genesis to Malachi (as we have seen in the IF chapter above), and in Paul's comments in Titus 2:13-15. {cf. Lewis above}. But notice Pauls' words: "³⁴ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." He does not actually say that there is a law, which says that: "it is not permitted for them to speak". His comment follows his inspired words "they are commanded to be under obedience" which actually is an implicit declaration. So Robin has wrested the inspired words based on a technicality. She then tries to make out that it was Roman or traditional Jewish law to which Paul is referring. We have refuted that error in the first sentence in this paragraph.

Notice Sis. Robin totally ignores the teaching of Paul in Timothy ⁵ and Titus.

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

Titus 2:3-4 "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,"

So as the second quote shows there is a wonderful role for sisters but not the one Sis. Robin falsely claims.

As for her comments on 1 Cor. 14:34-35, she claims this is the church view wanting to back up their man-made traditions but there is no evidence for this. Verses 36-38 are Paul's continuing comment on the confusion occurring at Corinth and his demand for them to accept his Apostolic authority.

'It needs to be emphasized that wherever this word "what" is used in a parallel structure to 1 Cor. 14 in the New Testament, the statement following always confirms and reinforces the statement preceding it. It never rejects the previous statement as being wrong.'⁶

'Does Paul reject the words of vs34-35?

4. Does the disjunctive particle ē (Grk. H)⁸⁷ mean that vs36-37 amount to Paul's rejection of the words of vs34-35?
Bilezikian,⁸⁸ for example, claims that it does. In note 29⁸⁹ he cites a series of passages from Corinthians to show that 'Paul uses the ē particle to express disapproval of existing situations.'

But when the passages are analyzed, they show the exact opposite to what Bilezikian claims for them. In each case, what follows the ē particle reinforces what precedes it. Bilezikian's view is that in 1 Cor. 6:1-3 Paul challenges the Corinthians for taking each other to court before unbelievers instead of believers. Paul is then supposed to counter this situation by saying 'Nonsense. Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?'

But surely Paul is saying that if believers cannot judge believers, how will they be able to judge the world? So the rhetorical question after the particle strengthens the statement before it.

Likewise, on 6:8-9, Bilezikian⁷, says that 'having exposed the misbehaviour of brethren who wrong and defraud each other, he counters with ē (nonsense!) do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?'

But again, when Paul says in v8 '... you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers' he strengthens his point by stating the consequences of their actions 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?'

Paul is not stating something and then rejecting the statement as untrue, as he is supposed to be doing in 14:35 and 36. He is criticizing the Corinthians' actions and bolstering that criticism by pointing out the consequences of their actions. In 14:35 and 36 he does the same. He points out that the women are doing something that is wrong and then [putting his rhetorical question as a statement] he bolsters his point by saying

"The word of God did not originate with you. You are not the only people it has reached and you need to acknowledge that this is the Lord's command."

Below is a list of the verses that turn around the ē particle. Readers can decide for themselves whether Paul:

1. states something and then rejects what he has stated in the next statement that follows the ē particle, or
2. whether the second statement establishes the first.

Rom 3:28-29; 6:23-7:1; 11:2; 1 Cor. 6:7-9; 6:15-16; 6:18-19; 9:5-6; 10:21- 22; 11:13-15 (there is a variation in the text of v14).

Note that in the case of 1 Cor. 6:15-16 Paul puts the absurd proposition that he should "take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute." He immediately rejects his own absurd proposition by exclaiming 'Never!' This is not the same as 14:35 and 36 or any of the other examples given, because Paul is not rejecting someone else's proposition he is rejecting his own proposition. Nor does his rejection turn on the particle ē, it turns on the word 'never' (v15) that he has inserted himself. This is not the case with 14:35 and 36 or any of the examples listed above. Bilezikian and others refer to Thayer's lexicon to support their point here but Thayer actually demonstrates that a sentence beginning with the ē that goes against the preceding sentence is designed to make the preceding sentence stand. ⁹¹.

Carson⁹² in examining this question concludes with:
"The brute fact is this: In every instance in the New Testament where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it."' GOD CHRIST MAN AND WOMAN p. 185-187.

Note Sis. Robin uses a modern translation about which I have the following to say:

'Translations

Doctrinal bias is to be found in most translations in areas where the "church" is apostate. This is evident to most Bible students on such subjects as hell, the devil, the supposed pre-existence of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit, etc. Doctrinal bias in the various translations is particularly evident in most Bibles on the subject of the Spirit. This is to be expected, as the translators believe Plato's teachings. Very imprecise renderings, for example, are made of the genitive case in such passages as 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 3:14.

The difference in result because of this bias may seem small on the surface, but it assumes major proportions when carefully examined. When a study of the Spirit is undertaken using the NEB as the main translation, the result can only end in error.'

Quoted from A Critical Review of Robin Jones' Videos on women speaking.

The second edition was written by this author in 1976. Reprinted in 1990 with the cover right. Updated online since then thanks to the help of Bro. Scott Stewart.

As we have just mentioned the study contained in the above book was completed in 1976. Although many other modern translations have emerged since then, the same comment could be made about them -- especially the gender-neutral (or inclusive) ones (eg. NIV, TNIV, NRSV, Good News Bible).

Sis. Robin uses the NIV to translate adelphos. Vine's has the following to say about adelphos:

If my comments on As in all the ecclesias of the saints (1 Cor. 14:33b) ... are correct then Sis. Robin's comments about verses 34-35 being the view of the church at Corinth are impossible, since it was the practice of all [other] ecclesias, but not followed by Corinth. So Paul was writing this letter to correct another of their failings.