The Weird World of Mr. Ware

Bruce A. Ware is the author of a lengthy article on the compatibility of our equality as humans created in the Image of God and hierarchical theology in which the man has authority over the woman because of his prior creation. To read the article, visit the below link
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-1/Male-and-Female-Complementarity-and-the-Image-of-God. 

In the weird world of Mr. Ware, all things are not as they seem. What looks right at first becomes quickly left, as he guides us through a maze of incoherent thoughts. 

The first part of the introduction explores what being created in the Image of God actually means. Mr. Ware concludes this exploration with the noble thought that both men and women are created in the image of God and are therefore equal as human beings. But because equality and inequality are like oil and water, and Mr. Ware wants to prove the existence of the latter instead of the former, he has decided to convince us that the woman derives the Image of God from the man.

Man is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human being bearing the image of God only through the man. While both are fully and equally the image of God, there is a built-in priority given to the male that reflects God's design of male-headship in the created order.

What then about the rest of us? How do we become the Image of God since we are born of women, and not perpetually created from a man’s side?  Mr. Ware seems to be of the opinion that both parents contribute, “So, it appears that those born become the image of God because they are born through those who are the image of God.” But because it would create a contradiction in his theology to affirm that only Eve derived the Image from a man, he adds his opinion that Genesis 5 teaches that only the father transfers the Image of God to the child. 

What is true in both texts, of Seth's and the woman's formation respectively, is that they derive their human natures, as Scripture specifically indicates, through the man. Another parallel is clear and is significant: both Seth and Eve are fully and equally the image of God when compared to Adam, who is image of God. So, the present discussion reaffirms and reinforces our earlier declaration that all human beings, women as well as men, children as well as parents, are fully and equally the image of God. But having said this, Scripture indicates in addition to this important point another: God's design regarding how the woman and how a child become the image of God seems to involve inextricably and intentionally the role of the man's prior existence as the image of God.

But if both Seth and Eve derived the Image of God from Adam, how was it possible for Seth, but not for Eve, to transfer the Image to his own children? Could it be that Eve is not mentioned in Genesis 5 because the chapter is “the written account of Adam's line” and the whole point is to show which father goes with which son, the mother being well known to all? In other words, maybe Eve had a bit more to do with Seth being in the Image of God than Mr. Ware would have us acknowledge.

Despite the obvious flaw in his thinking, Mr. Ware continues undeterred. To provide further evidence for his theology, and to remove the possibility that the man’s prior creation could be “nothing more than a sort of tossing of a divine coin,” Mr. Ware informs us that God formed the woman from the man in order to make her dependent of the man.

But God wanted to convey two theological truths (not just one) in the formation of the woman from the rib of Adam: since the woman was taken out of the man, 1) she is fully and equally human since she has come from his bones and his flesh, and 2) her very human nature is constituted, not in parallel fashion to his with both formed from the same earth, but as derived from his own nature so showing a God-chosen dependence upon him for her origination.

In other words, the woman must be the man’s subject and dependent of him or Genesis 2 speaks only of equality.
In an effort to find his “derivation” theology already in Genesis 1, Mr. Ware points out that the Hebrew word ‘adam, found in Genesis 1.26, is a masculine word and therefore it teaches us “that woman possesses her common human nature only through the prior nature of the man.”  Mr. Ware seems strangely unaware of the fact that the gender of a word is an artificial linguistic tool, not a theological statement; for example, spirit is a feminine word in Hebrew but neuter in Greek. Mr. Ware adds to the confusion when he writes, “Since this is so, we should resist the movement today in Bible translation that would customarily render instances of áa„d£a„m with the fully non-gender specific term ‘human being'. This misses the God-intended implication conveyed by the masculine generic ‘man,' viz., that woman possesses her common human nature only through the prior nature of the man.” How strange then that the creators of the Greek Septuagint (250 BCE) translated ‘adam with anthropos, a non-gender specific Greek term for “human being.”  Perhaps the dictionary is right and ‘adam is a non-gender specific word for “human being” in Hebrew.

As long as Mr. Ware’s focus was on the first humans, his theology was able to survive, albeit full of holes. But when he begins to apply it to singles, the boat sinks before it even has had a change to float.  Mr. Ware writes that a marriage is only a shadow of the union between Christ and the church, wherefore “no believing single will miss out on the reality of marriage even if God calls him or her to live without the shadow.” So far so good. But when the question of the man’s authority is brought up, Mr. Ware is suddenly of the opinion that the man's prior creation “does not entail the authority of all men over all women,” for the man’s authority should be extended only to Christian husbands and the elders of the church. All single people should therefore be members of a church “where they may be involved in the authority structure of that church,” for “qualified male elders are responsible for the spiritual welfare of their membership, and so single women, in particular, may find a source of spiritual counsel and guidance from these male elders in the absence of a husband who might otherwise offer such help.” If only married women are subject to their husbands, why does Mr. Ware nevertheless insist that Christian single women offer deference to Christian single men?

Second, the temporal priority of the male in the image of God means that in general, within male-female relationships among singles, there should be a deference offered to the men by the women of the group, which acknowledges the woman's reception of her human nature in the image of God through the man, but which also stops short of a full and general submission of women to men. Deference, respect, and honor should be showed to men, but never should there be an expectation that all the women must submit to the men's wishes. And for single men, there should be a gentle and respectful leadership exerted within a mixed group, while this also falls short of the special authority that husbands and fathers have in their homes, or that elders have in the assembly. Because all are in the image of God, and because women generally are image of God through the man, some expression of this male-headship principle ought to be exhibited generally among women and men, while reserving the particular full relationships of authority to those specified in Scripture, viz. in the home and the believing community.

Although Mr. Ware has an explanation to the subjection of women and children, he doesn’t provide an explanation as to what the foundation is for one man’s authority over another. Since all men are directly in the image of God and therefore equal, Mr. Ware lacks the means to make one man subject to another.


 To conclude, Mr. Ware's "derivation" theology has several serious flaws:

1. Why do men not derive the Image of God from women although they are born of women?
2. How do men transfer the Image of God to their children if also Seth derived the Image of God from Adam in the likeness of his mother Eve?
3. If husbands have authority over their wives because Eve was created from Adam, what is the foundation of a man's authority over another man?
4. If all men do not have authority over all women, why must single Christian women offer deference to single Christian men?

Chrysostom on the Subjection of Women

John Chrysostom, the eloquent bishop of Constantinople, is not popular with complementarians for not only did he explicitly mention that Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon and Deborah a judge, his theology casts a long shadow of doubt on the claim that modern complementarian theology faithfully replicates the ancient apostolic tradition: when compared to Chrysostom's theology, modern complementarism appears to be a recent novelty, a complete reversal of John's fourth century beliefs.

Modern complementarism finds the woman's subjection in the creation account, and claim the woman is barred from teaching due to the man's prior creation. The fall account is said to represent the consequence of sin, not the beginning of the man's rule. Both 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 are said to enforce female subjection as a created order. Chrysostom, on the other hand, believed that the woman was subjected because “she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all then she is justly told for the future, “thy turning shall be to thy husband” (Gen 3.16).” Neither God or the man said anything about subjection to the woman at creation, instead the man said she was “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” which signified her equality with the man. (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 11, Homily XXVI) Neither did Chrysostom find subjection in 1 Cor 11:

But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this? (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXVI)

According to Chrysostom, the woman was barred from teaching because of the fall, not creation.

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been said to her before… The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation, by the bringing up of children, so that you are saved, not only by yourselves, but by others.” (Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX)
Because it seemed irrational that women should earn their salvation through works, and because virginity was so highly valued in the fifth century church, Chrysostom felt compelled to explain the inconsistency, but he could only conclude that “this is the amount of what [Paul] says.”

Although Chrysostom remained remarkably faithful to the original beliefs handed down by the apostles, he was nevertheless influenced by the teachings of Aristotle, the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher, which is seen in his rather condescending remarks of the woman's ability to think for herself ("the woman is weakminded"), his insistence that equality is always hurtful (although he wrote that Abraham and Sarah obeyed each other), and his remark that women are inferior to men. His attempts to incorporate these into his theology accounts for the occasional inconsistency in his otherwise faithful transmission of the apostolic tradition and is clearly seen in his treatment of Genesis 3.16: he believed, alongside all fourth century theologians, that God punished Eve with subjection to Adam, who was deemed innocent (although he was somewhat inconsistently also charged with being the reason for original sin). If we change this one aspect in Chrysostom's theology and affirm with the first century and the modern church that Gen 3.16 is not God's mandate but a consequence of sin, Chrysostom's theology is faithfully replicated in the theology of modern egalitarianism.

Virginity and the Catholic Hierarchy

Nearly four hundred years after Jerome’s false translation ("Under the man's authority shall you be and he will rule over you") was rejected by Protestant theologians, Genesis 3.16 was returned to its original position as a description of a consequence of sin (in the 1980s). The Catholic response to the changing of the interpretation of Genesis 3.16 is seen in that although Rev. Regis Scanlon refers to Thomas’s twofold subjection, he views the verse as a description of a “bad” subjection given to Eve as a punishment and “a constant threat” from which the married couple escapes, for the husband’s authority is given to bring about mutual submission based upon their free commitment.[1] I.e., Scanlon no longer agrees with Thomas’s view that Genesis 3:16 mandates the man to rule over the woman. Scanlon believes also that virgins overcome the negative effect of the Fall and “the threatened rule of the male over the female” by being under the authority of the Catholic Church, for in his view it is “the perfect fulfillment of that hierarchy of authority found in God’s creation.” But by this statement he contradicts himself, for the church has always been, and still is, considered feminine, and thus he makes a celibate man subject to a woman, so to speak. Perhaps Scanlon considers the celibate man to be subject to the authority of the bishop, who is always male, and not to the church per se. But even if we would allow for such a distinction, the celibate man’s subjection does not fulfill the hierarchy in which a man has authority over a woman, unless we consider the celibate man to have become a woman.

If the church has always taught a creation based hierarchy, why does Scanlon refer only to the thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas? In fact, it is Scanlon’s own argument which proves the impossibility of implementing such a hierarchy in the case of virgins, which accords well with the patristic belief that virgins and chaste women were equal with men. Thus we may conclude that the early church did not teach a creation based hierarchy in which the man had authority over the woman, for although virginity was highly esteemed, also marriage was approved of and not viewed as a consequence of sin. 

I have What You Want, You Have What I Need

We hear often that supply and demand are sufficient to sort out the complexities of human interaction on all levels of life, whether they be commercial or personal. The theory may look good on paper, but it overlooks the fact that sometimes I have what you want, and you have what I need.

If someone has what others want, and others have what that someone needs, the others can use extortion to get what they want, because of the need of that someone. The more acute the need, the easier it will be for  the others to extort what they want, be it money, sex, or time.

Because our needs and wants are never equal, which is, by the way, why inequality is said to be inevitable, there can never be such a thing as an equal trade between equal partners. If there can never be an equal trade, supply and demand are not sufficient; we need another kind of model that ensures that human need does not become an opportunity for extortion. Unless, of course, we like the idea that those who have more have the right to use the need of others to get what they want.

What kind of model would ensure that needs and wants are equalized? A good start would be to recognize that all humans have equal needs, but not equal means. Healthcare, education, food and clean water, are needs all humans share in common, but as the world is right now, most humans have great needs, but lack the means. As a result a large portion of humanity goes hungry, destitute, ill, and illiterate.

The most common objection to the creation of a new model is that people need to help themselves. But since the poverty is created by those who use the needs of others to create inequality, which further creates poverty, the cycle cannot be broken by the poor, it must be unraveled by the wealthy. Economic equality ensures that the needs of some are not greater than the wants of others, rescuing millions from the hands of traffickers, human smugglers, human organ traders, and gives back lost childhoods, lost lives.

The price we pay for not getting everything we want is small compared to the opportunity it creates for others to have what they need to live.

What's in a Name?

Raymod Ortlund grasps the beauty of the poetry involved in Genesis 2:23 and he sees the woman as an equal because she is created from the man, for with the woman the man can experience companionship on his own level. But at the same time he views the man naming the woman as an act of authority, a royal prerogative, since he is naming his helper.[1] Ortlund’s reasoning makes the woman the man’s slave, since the “naming concept” is adopted from the ungodly Babylonian practice of depriving the slave of his or her previous identity through the imposition of a new name. Theologians have used the argument indiscriminately as seen in Henry’s Commentary, “It is an act of authority to impose names (Dan, 1:7), and of subjection to receive them” [2] The biblical practice of name-changing is, however, not an act of authority, for names were changed as a sign of a changed situation. Hence Adam named the first woman Chawah (“Eve”) because she was to become the mother of all living (chay) (Gen. 3:20). Also Sarai was re-named Sarah as she was to become the mother of Isaac (Gen. 17:16).

Wayne Grudem suggests that the naming of various people by God and the name giving of children by their parents are examples of an act of authority. However, God owns us as our Creator, and children need parental authority for their own protection. The man does not own the woman nor is she a child, wherefore the comparison fails.[3] 

Because the woman was not created to be a helper, Ortlund’s statement lacks a solid foundation but his belief that Eve understood who she was by the man’s definition, instead of God’s, reveals the true nature of complementarism: the woman is said to be what the man wants her to be – his helper instead of his equal.[4] 

There is also the added problem of Sarah’s slave-girl Hagar naming God:

She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.  (Gen 16:13-14, NIV)

If giving someone a name is an act of authority, did Hagar have authority over God? Or should we restrict the naming of a subordinate only to a man? If so, we have committed the fallacy of circular reasoning: the man is proven to have authority because he names the woman; the man names the woman because he has authority. Either way, the man just has authority, regardless of how we look at the subject. Such reasoning can safely be excluded, for more than unproven axioms are needed to prove that God gave the man authority at creation.

---

[1] Piper and Grudem, ed. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [Crossway, Wheaton Illinois, 1994] 101-102.

[2]  “Gen 2:18-20,” Matthew Henry Commentary On the Whole Bible.

[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic theology, (Inter-Varsity Press (UK) and Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994), 462.

[4] Piper and Grudem, 103. The man did not define the woman, for God had already defined her before bringing her to the man by calling her “woman” (Gen. 2:22). The man simply recognized who she was: a female human being.

Who Can Represent God?

We are told God is male because the Bible uses the masculine default when talking about God (for example, God is called a Father) and therefore only men can represent God.

However, also the devil is called a father.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. (John 8:44-45 NKJV)

If only men can represent God because God is male, does this mean that only men can represent the devil, i.e. be evil, since the devil is a male?

Why Complementarians Can't Decide (and Why the Church Really Needs to)

The reason complementarians keep on changing their theology is that they can't decide whether to choose pleasure or power.

The "flesh" lives for pleasure and power. In the secular world, the "flesh" doesn't have to choose, for power comes with endless pleasure. But in the realm of religion, it isn't quite as simple. Religious power usually requires the surrendering of earthly pleasures, wherefore the religious must choose between power and pleasure, and it is this trade that causes all the problems for complementarians.

As a result, one day pastors are proud of their "smoking hot wives," but the next young men are told that "hot" is not where they want to go; docility is the one virtue that they should seek in their future wives.

One day women are told that headcoverings are not mandated by the Bible (because long hair is seductive), but the next day, they are biblical (because seductiveness is female power over the male).

One day men are told that they should treat their wives with consideration (because women are physically weaker), but the next, they are told that they should spank their wives into submission (because men are physically stronger).

One day couples are told that the husband has the right to demand sex, the next they are told that procreation is the only legitimate reason for sex.

The list is endless, and it continues to cause massive confusion in the church.

The problem is not so much about whether men and women are different, but whether men are willing to see women as fully human, and not as objects of pleasure, or subjects of male power. It isn't possible to keep on trying to do what the world does and continue to claim to be a Christian. It is about time the church chose whether to be part of the Body of Christ, or live the way the rest of the world does. There really is no middle ground.

Break For Writing July 17th to July 23rd

Mutual Submission in First-Century Christianity

On the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Web site, Grudem challenges egalitarians to provide an example in which hypotasso is being applied “to relationships between persons and where it does not carry the sense of being subject to an authority.”[1]  Clement of Rome, who is believed by many to be the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, is an early witness to the mutual subjection of all believers.

Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work (lit. all breathe together) harmoniously together, and are under one common rule (lit. use one subjection) for the preservation of the whole body.  Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift (lit. according as he has been placed in his charism) bestowed upon him.[2]  

Polycarp was the disciple of John the Apostle, and in his letter love, humility and good works are all part of mutual subjection.

Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” Be all of you subject one to another having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,” that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.[3] 

The disciple of Polycarp, Irenaues, wrote in his only surviving work, Against Heresies, “Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing.[4] Also Origen connected submission with salvation in the beginning of the third century.

What, then, is this “putting under” by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ. For the name “subjection,” by which we are subject to Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to His subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, “Shall not my soul be subject unto God? From Him cometh my salvation.”[5]

Mutual submission is not taught only in Ephesians 5.21 - it is also found in 1 Peter 5.5-6. Modern English translations do not convey the meaning, for allelon (“one another”) is connected to tapeinophrosune (“humility of mind”) instead of hypotasso as seen in the NIV, “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another.” But how does one clothe oneself toward another? Not surprisingly, the post-Reformation translations do not follow the Vulgate which connects the humility of mind with “one another” while modern English translations do [1] for the modern church shares its affinity towards a powerful clergy with the patristic church, while the Post-Reformation churches attempted to bring more equality between the clergy and the laity after a millennium of powerful and corrupt bishops by emphasizing the mutual submission of the two.

Clement of Rome agreed with the post-Reformation Bible translators.

For God,” saith [the Scripture], “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.[2] 

Clement appears to translate hypotasso with “cleave,” and he considers clothing oneself with humility to be personal, not “toward one another.” First Peter 5.5-6 makes eminently more sense if hypotasso is connected to allelon (“be subject to another”) and tapeinophrosune to each believer’s relationship towards God (“Be clothed with humility, for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”), for the believers are directed to submit to another and to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, so He might exalt them in due time.

---

[1] Tyndale (1526), Miles Coverdale (1535), The Bishop’s Bible (1568), Geneva Bible (1587), The King James Version (1611) and Wesley’s New Testament (1755) all have “be subject to one another.” The Vulgate translates the text, “Similiter adulescentes subditi estote senioribus omnes autem invicem humilitatem insinuate quia dues superbis resistit humilibus autem dat gratiam.”

[2] The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ch. XXX.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Eph 5:21, Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org.

[2] Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ch. XXXVII-III.

[3] Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch. X.

[4] Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. XXXIX.

[5] Origen, Origen de Principiis, Book I, Ch. VI.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

It is better for a man to be silent and be [a Christian],

Than to talk and not to be one. It is good to teach, if he who speaks also acts.

There is then one Teacher, who spoke and it was done;

While even those things which He did in silence are worthy of the Father.

He who possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to hear even His very silence,

That he may be perfect, and may both act as he speaks,

And be recognized by his silence.

- Ignatius[1]

***

William Weinrich [In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood] observes correctly that it was during the patristic and medieval periods that “patterns of conduct and ecclesial behavior were developed and solidified,” and that the fathers of the Reformation adopted the medieval practice of excluding women from the clergy “without question.”[2]

Martin Luther (d.1547) consistently maintained a priesthood of all believers (especially on the basis of 1 Peter 2:9). This common priesthood possesses the right and power to exercise all “priestly offices” (teach, preach, baptize, administer the Eucharist, bind and loose sin, pray for others, sacrifice, judge doctrine and spirits). Yet, Luther habitually combines 1 Corinthians 14:34 with Genesis 3:16 to assert that women are excluded from the public exercise of the common priesthood. In view of the “ordinance and creation of God” that women are subject to their husbands, Paul forbade women “to preach in the congregation where men are present who are skilled in speaking, so that respect and discipline may be maintained.” However, if no man is present to preach, then “it would be necessary for the woman to preach.” For Luther, the apostolic prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was determinative.[3]

But if Genesis 3:16 does not describe what should be, why did Luther connect the verse with 1 Corinthians 14:34 to affirm that women were excluded from the common priesthood?  Because he followed tradition and not all traditions follow the Bible.

Luther’s exclusion of women has it’s origin in a tradition begun by Tertullian (145-220). Karen Jo Torjesen describes Tertullian’s vision of the church as an essentially Roman institution.

Tertullian’s description of the Christian community dramatically marks the transition of the model of the church from the household or private association to the body politic. With him the church became a legal body (corpus or societas, the term the Romans used for the body politic) unified by a common law (lex fidei, “the law of faith”) and a common discipline (disciplina, Christian morality). For Tertullian the church, like Roman society, united a diversity of ethic groups into one body under the rule of one law… Tertullian conceived the society of the church as analogous to Roman society, divided into distinct classes or ranks, which were distinguished from one another in terms of honor and authority.[4]

Only those who were full members of the political body could possess ius docendi (the legal right to teach) and ius baptizandi (legal right to baptize). Women could not be full members and therefore they were excluded from the clergy. But Tertullian excluded women also from the laity, for although the laity could perform the legal functions in the absence of the clergy, women could not.

“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.”[5]

Weinrich considers Tertullian “a representative voice” of the universal church of the second century,[6] but he cannot do so without excluding women from the church altogether.

Thomas Aquinas continued to connect 1 Corinthians 14:34 to Genesis 3:16 in the Medieval Church.

The apostle says: “Let women keep silence in the churches,” and “I suffer not a woman to teach.” Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. … First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby women should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to subjects but to prelates (although men who are subjects may do these things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men’s minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Sirach 9.11): “Her conversation burneth as fire.” Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be fit to be intrusted [sic] with public teaching.”[7]

Luther inherited Thomas’s theology, and the Protestant churches have continued Luther’s habit of connecting Genesis 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as seen in William MacDonald’s Believer’s Bible Commentary.[8]

We believe that the expression ‘as the law also says’ has reference to the woman’s being submissive to the man. This is clearly taught in the law, which here probably means the Pentateuch primarily. Genesis 3:16, for instance says “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”[9]

But MacDonald cannot remain consistent in his theology, for Christian freedom from the law is one of the central themes of the New Testament.

The Christian has died to the law; he has nothing more to do with it. … Christians who desire to be under the law as a pattern of behavior do not realize that this places them under its curse. Moreover, they cannot touch the law in one point without being responsible to keep it completely. The only way we can live to God is by being dead to the law.[10] 

***

Although Tertullian believed women ought to be silenced in the church, he did not know what to make of the reference to the Law.

When enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it.[11]  

By the fourth century, the Law no longer posed a problem, for the inferiority of the woman and the sole guilt of Eve had changed the meaning of Genesis 3:16 from a consequence of sin to a commandment of God. Chrysostom combined 1 Corinthians 14:34 with Genesis 3:16 without discussion and maintained that women should be silent in the Church because “the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded.”[12]

In the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theology the inferiority of the woman was the reason for her silence. Matthew Henry concluded that women ought to be silent and refrain from teaching in the Church because, “it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her.”[13] Adam Clarke believed women prophesied in the Early Church because of 1 Cor 11:5, but because of the apparent contradiction with 1 Cor 14:34, he concluded that the latter forbade only asking questions, not all speech.[14] Clarke thought “the law” had reference to Genesis 3:16, as did Barnes and Tertullian, but although Tertullian allowed women to pray and prophesy, Barnes concluded that the silencing of women in the Church could not be disputed because the rule was “positive, explicit, and universal.”[15] He equated foreign languages and prophesy with public speaking and therefore they were only for “the male portion of the congregation.” And as to the contradiction between chapters 11 and 14, for Barnes there was none, for he thought Paul was forbidding women from speaking “on every ground.”[16]

D.A. Carson disagrees with Weinrich’s approval of Luther’s habit of connecting Genesis 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 in his essay Silent in the Churches.

By this clause [the law says], Paul is probably not referring to Genesis 3:16, as many suggest, but to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b-24, for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns to on two others occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Corinthians 11.8, 9; 1 Timothy 2:13).[17]

But the new connection is not without problems. The phrase “the law says” is found three times in the New Testament: Rom 3:19, 1 Cor 9:8, and 1 Cor 14:34. Carson concedes that Paul usually provides the actual verse from the Old Testament, which is true of the first two examples, but he believes Paul has already provided the verse (Genesis 2:20-4) in 1 Corinthians 11. Carson believes also that the reference to the Law should be understood as Scripture, which includes the Creation account.[18] However, Genesis 1-3 is not called “the Law” or “Scripture” in the Bible; it is always called “the beginning.”[19] Hence “the law” cannot refer to Genesis 2:20-24.

Carson recognizes the problem of reconciling 1 Cor 11:3-16 with 14:34-35, wherefore he suggests that the former allows women to prophesy, but that the latter forbids them from evaluating prophecies. Because Carson acknowledges that the whole church should participate in the evaluation of teaching (Acts 17:11; Rev 2:2-3) he creates a distinction in which women are (1) allowed to prophesy, but not allowed to evaluate prophecy; and (2) disallowed to teach, but allowed to evaluate teaching. If "the careful weighing of prophecies falls under the magisterial function" of the teaching authority, why does not the evaluation of teaching considering Carson’s belief that teaching is superior to prophesying?[20]

Also George W. Knight III recognizes that 1 Cor 11:3-16 allows women to pray and to prophesy in his essay The Family and the Church, but he views 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a prohibition for women to teach in a church setting.

This is seen in Paul's treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only from speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-5) where congregational "teaching" is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the items listed in verse 26 correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only the first item, "a psalm," not dealt with in these verses] and in particular notice that "teaching" [NASB] in verse 26 is the one-word description for the "speaking" Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34-35). These women are recognized as properly participating in praying and prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign of their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians 11:1-6).[21]

Knight does not explain how the "one-word description" of "teaching" can be "speaking" (laleo) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, considering the word is connected to both tongues and prophecy three times in verses 27-29. Neither does he have a reason why women should learn (manthano) at home when the purpose of prophecy is that all may learn (manthano) at church (v. 31).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is speech. (Laleo is used twenty-four times in chapter 14.) In verses 1-25 Paul explains why the Corinthians should desire to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues; in verses 26-40 he explains the proper way of prophesying and speaking in tongues. Moreover, Paul considered prophesying, which both men and women participated in, equivalent to teaching, for he wrote, “But one who prophesies speaks [laleo] to men for edification [oikodome] and exhortation [paraklesis] and consolation… For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted [parakaleo]” (Cor 14:3, 31, NAS). The purpose of their gathering together - the psalms, teachings, tongues, revelations and interpretations - was edification (oikodome, v. 26). Therefore prophesy was not distinguished from teaching as to its purpose. In addition, exhortation (paraklesis) is equivalent to declaring divine truths - such as the gospel, as seen in Acts 13:15-52, Hebrews 13:22, and 1 Thessalonians 2:2-3 - and people are expected to learn as a result. Since prophesying is a form of teaching, it is impossible that Paul excluded women from teaching, and consequently, the evaluation of prophesy.

***

Because of the difficulties associated with the former connection to Genesis 3:16, the meaning of “the law” and the impossibility to reconcile the two verses with chapter 11, it has been suggested that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation (a later addition). Carson rejects the possibility on the grounds that “it is hard to believe that none of the earliest copies had any influence on the second-and third century textual traditions to which we have access.”[22] But because all of the Western witnesses place 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 after verse 40, Carson concludes that it would take only one copyist to introduce a transposition of a verse “presumably early enough to capture the Western tradition.”[23] If one copyist could create a uniform tradition by changing the position of a verse without the earlier copies having an influence on the later textual tradition, why cannot the same be true of an interpolation?  

         It is likely that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was instrumental in changing the interpretation of Genesis 3:16, for it is connected to Genesis 3:16 only when the verse is viewed as a commandment. Because the interpretation of Genesis 3:16 was changed before the end of the second century, the interpolation must have been created in the early second century – early enough to change the textual traditions of the second and third centuries.

         Carson is aware that the Western tradition knew of a variant position, but he is mistaken of the variant itself.

The relevant textual evidence is quickly stated. Verses 34-35 appear in all known manuscripts, either in their present position, or in the case of all Western witnesses, after verse 40 (D F G 88* a b d f g Ambrosiaster Sedulius-Scotus). In addition, Codex Fuldensis (a Latin manuscript written between A.D. 541, and A.D. 546 by order of Bishop Victor of Capua) places the verses after verse 40, but also inserts them in the margin after verse 33. It appears that, despite the uniformity of the Western tradition, Victor, or those who worked at his bidding, became aware of the placement of the verses outside their own tradition and signaled their hesitation in this way. [24]

Carson believes the variant concerns the location of the two verses, but B.M. Metzger, whose error Carson perpetuates, admitted to Philip B. Payne that he had never seen the actual text. After viewing a photocopy of the manuscript, which shows that Bishop Victor ordered a rewriting of verses 36-40 in the bottom margin and not next to verse 33 and after verse 40, he admitted that “his statement in the Textual Commentary on the NT is in error.”[25]  As Payne explains, the scribe placed a symbol next to verse 33 to signal where to begin to read the text found in the bottom margin,

I conclude that Bishop Victor ordered the rewriting of 1 Cor 14:34-40 in the margin of Codex Fuldensis with vv. 34-[3]5 omitted and that there is a text-critical siglum that indicates the scribe’s awareness of a textual variant at the beginning of 1 Cor 14:34 in codex Vaticanus. This text-critical evidence, plus the evidence from the non-Western ms 88* and Vulgate ms Reginensis with vv. 34-[3]5 transposed after v. 40, makes an already strong case for interpolation even stronger.[26]  

Professor Metzger agreed that “the most natural explanation is that Victor ordered the rewriting of the text of 1 Cor 14.36-40 to replace all of vv. 34-40 in the text above and that this implies that Victor believed that 34-[3]5 was an interpolation.”[27]

The Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546) is the earliest dated manuscript of the New Testament and the only manuscript edited by “one of the eminent scholars of the early church,” Bishop Victor, who combined Tatia’s Diatessaron (the four Gospels) and Jerome’s Vulgate, which he substituted for the Old Latin.[28]  Payne concludes that “we must assume that Victor had sufficient evidence to convince him that the Vulgate text was wrong at 1 Cor 14:34-[3]5.”[29]  The Vulgate included also 1 John 5:7-8 with a preface claiming to be written by St. Jerome which “accuses the Latin translators of omitting this testimonium.”[30] Bishop Victor omitted these verses, which supports the existence of interpolations in the Vulgate.

As noted before, Carson believes the second and third century textual traditions should have been affected by the first wherefore an early interpolation would have been impossible. But the incorrect rendering of Genesis 3:16 in the Vulgate was not challenged in the fifth century although Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint were widely available. It is therefore not surprising that an interpolation of the same nature had been readily accepted and that the dissenting voices were few and far apart.

That a text bearing a striking similarity to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, strengthens the likelihood of an early interpolation.[31]

The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed, for the authority has been given by God to the man.[32]

Josephus (born in A.D. 37) wrote Against Apion around A.D. 100, which makes Paul’s letter to the Corinthians an earlier work. The context of the chapter in which the quote is found is marriage in Jewish Law. Because the husband’s authority and the woman’s inferiority are not found in the Old Testament, Josephus was most likely referring to the Jewish oral law, which he calls “our law.” Josephus does not demand that the women be silent, for he affirms that all Jews knew the Law well and that anyone, women and servants included, could answer inquires.[33]

The silencing of women is found in a speech by Cato the Censor, the second century B.C. moral guardian of the Republican Rome.

According to Livy, recorded in The Early History of Rome… Cato [the Censor] declared if every man had been concerned to ensure that his own wife looked up to him and respected his rightful position as her husband, we should not have become so powerful that our independence has been lost in our own homes and is now being trampled and stamped underfoot in public. We have failed to restrain them as individuals, and now they have combined to reduce us to our present panic… It made me blush to push through a positive regiment of women a few minutes ago in order to get here. My respect for the position and modesty of them as individuals – a respect which I do not feel for them as a mob – prevented me from doing anything as consul which would suggest the use of force. Otherwise I should have said to them, “What do you mean by rushing out in public in this unprecedented fashion, blocking the streets and shouting out to men who are not husbands? Could you not have asked your questions at home, and have asked them of your husbands?”[34]

The speech was given as a response to the upper-class women who had come to inquire of the Senate when the Oppian Laws, which had restricted the display of luxury during the war against Hannibal, were going to be abolished. Although Cato failed to retain the Oppian Laws, he became the icon of austere, moral living for all Romans. Tertullian, when defending the faith, asked the Romans, “Which of these gods of yours is more remarkable for gravity and wisdom than Cato.”[35] And, Lactantius called Cato “the Chief of Roman wisdom.”[36]

Cato’s belief that women would not be content with equality makes him a likely source of an interpolation which mandates the subjection of women.

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is not good giving her the reins and expecting her not to kick over the traces. No, you have got to keep the reins firmly in your own hands… Suppose you allow them to acquire or to restore one right after another, and in the end to achieve complete equality with men, do you think that you will find them bearable? Nonsense. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters…[37]

A religion which made women equal with men would have not been welcomed by a patriarchal system which recognized only authority and subjection, for those who live in a hierarchical society seem woefully unable to trust that their subjects would not wish to rule them in turn if given a chance. Even today, equality between men and women is as abstract of a concept as eating grass is for the lion for those who fear the emerging of a matriarchy that has never existed in the past.

---

[1] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. XV.

[2] Piper and Grudem, 279.

[3] Ibid., 278.

[4] Torjesen, 162-3.

[5]  Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch. IX.

[6] Piper and Grudem, 273.

[7] Summa Theologica, Second Part of Second Part, Question 177, Article 2.

[8] MacDonald proposes laleo means “to speak authoritatively,” which creates the absurd position of allowing children, but not women, to speak with authority: “When I was a child, I spake [laleo] as a child.” (1 Cor. 13:11, KJV; William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Inc, 1980]).

[9] MacDonald, “1 Cor 14:34-35,” 1802.

[10] Ibid., “Gal 2:19,” 1880.

[11] Tertullian, Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, VIII.

[12] Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily, XXXVII.

[13] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition.

[14] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Adam Clarke's Commentary on the whole Bible.

[15] But if women are not allowed to speak in the church, why did Peter write if “anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11)? A similar prohibition against female speech is not found in his letters.

[16] Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

[17] Piper and Grudem, 152.

[18] Ibid., 148.

[19] See Isaiah 40:2; 41:26; 46:10; Matthew 19:4-9; 24:19-21; Ecclesiastical 3:10-12; Mark 10:3-9; 13:18-19; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:3-4; 1 John 3:8.

[20] Piper and Grudem, 153.

[21] Ibid., 351.                                       

[22] Ibid., 142.

[23] Ibid., 142-143.

[24] Ibid.,141.

[25] Philip B Payne, New Testament Study (Edmonds, WA: Edmonds Publishing Group, 1995), 241-2.

[26] Ibid., 240.

[27] Ibid., 245.

[28] Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, wrote the Harmony of the Gospel (Diatessaron) about A.D. 170. Tatian was an Assyrian and his work was used widely in Syria. “Scholars are inclined to make Tatian’s to be the earliest Syriac translation of the Gospel” (www.newadvent.com).

[29] Payne, 245.

[30] Ibid., 241.

[31] An alternative translation by William Whiston reads, “But then, what are our laws about marriage? … For saith the Scripture, “A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.” Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband.” (Flavius Josephus Against Apion, in Josephus, The Complete Works, trans. by William Whiston [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998], 2.24).

[32] Thomas Cahill, Desire of the everlasting Hills (New York: Random House, 2001), 233.

[33] Josephus, 2.19.

[34] Jack Holland, Misogyny (New York City: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2006), 43-44.

[35] Tertullian, The Apology, Ch. XI.

[36] Lactantius, Of the False Wisdom of Philosophers, Book III, Ch. XVIII.

[37] Holland, 43-44.