Can Women Vote In Church Decisions? VIII

"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. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (I Tim. 2: 11-15)

These verses are very similar to I Cor. 14:33-34. That being the case, much of what was said on that passage applies here. Both passages command women to be in silence when they are in the assembly and being taught by the elders or other male teachers. Both command women to be submissive to male leadership, upholding a kind of patriarchalism, at least in the church and in the family. (Note: my spell checker says that "patriarchalism" is not a valid word!) Both passages deal with a woman's Christian education and how her education from teachers in the assembly is to be done as a quiet learner, not asking questions in such a setting. Her education at home, under the supervision of her husband, if married, and her father, if not married, allows her to ask questions and to be a more involved and vocal learner. The differences are few.

First, in this passage, there is direct mention of a woman's prohibition against teaching in the assembly, in the mixed assembly, where adult men are present. But more on that shortly. Second, while the first passage commands women to be "under obedience," this passage states the same thought in these words - "I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man." Third, this passage gives additional information on the reason for a woman's subordination.

Needless to say, some are lax in their interpretation of these words and others are very strict. Some approach the passage with their minds firmly decided in favor of women being equal to men in every respect, even in Christian ministry and office, and seek in every way possible to give strange and absurd ideas about the apostle's words. Others, on the other hand, approach the passage with their minds firmly decided that women cannot do any teaching or ministry at all, and cannot vote, cannot speak, cannot sing, etc. We are sure, however, that the truth, as usual, lies between extremes.

I look back over my history and thank God for my female teachers. After all, women, though forbidden to teach scripture and theology to adult men, are nevertheless allowed of God to teach in other ways. They are certainly allowed to teach men, as they do in schools and colleges, such topics as math, science, and other such subjects. Further, they are certainly not only allowed, but commanded of God to teach their children in the home, including scripture and theology, but under male leadership. Further, in private meetings, either with women or children, or with adult men, they are allowed to speak their minds on bible subjects and help others to see the way of God more clearly and accurately. This was certainly true of Priscilla, wife of Aquila, who helped to show the preacher Apollos "the way of God more perfectly." (See Acts 18: 1,2, 25,26)

The apostle Paul thought of the godly teaching influence of two women when he thought of the faith (belief) of Timothy, saying to him - "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." (II Tim. 1:5) Solomon spoke of a mother's teaching ministry to her children in the Book of Proverbs, saying, for instance - "My son, listen to your father's instruction, and do not forsake your mother's teaching." (Prov. 1:8) Thank God for such mothers! Many Christians can credit their mother's teaching with helping them to be all they can be.

When I was sixteen years old, I was brought into the fellowship of Christ and one of my first godly counselors and teachers was my High School English teacher Mrs. Shrader. She taught a "Bible Literature" class in High School (something difficult to do today with so much phobia against such a thing). In this class she did not teach doctrine. It was forbidden by law. Nevertheless, those students who were Christians sought her guidance often. I remember telling her, after I had been baptized, "I am a Primitive Baptist." She was a Baptist, a Landmark Baptist. She attended the large "Landmark Temple" in Cincinnati. She lived in Oxford, Ohio, a place with a history of "Primitive Baptists" in that area. Elder Wilson Thompson preached in the Oxford area many times. On two occasions outside of school I was helped much by her teaching. Once, before I ever thought of becoming a Hardshell Baptist, and before I was converted, I went to a vacation Bible school at a local Baptist church where some of my High School friends were active. I never will forget her teaching about what it meant to be born again. It remains in my heart to this day. I also remember how she had several of us over to her home one day and was always encouraging us in our search for the Lord and the well being of our souls.

Now, I could name other women who have been a great help to me in my religious education. I could name women who teach on the radio, like Elisabeth Elliot, who I believe God has used to help spread the good news. Her teaching is not the kind of authoritarian teaching that one would expect from pastors and elders, and from male teachers, but was more of a kind of personal testimony intermixed with citations from scriptures. I don't think this violated scripture. I have also read writings on scripture by other women that have been of great help to me on certain subjects. Sometimes these women happen to be authorities in ancient Hebrew or Greek and their comments on that, as it pertains to certain bible verses, has been a help.

What I am trying to say is this: these verses do not condemn any and all teaching for women. What it does do is to put restrictions on women in teaching the bible. But, more on this point shortly. First, I want to look at some of the leading commentaries on this passage.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Proverbs 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them: nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do..."

Though Gill was often very strict when it comes to a woman's place in the church, he nevertheless at least sees how Paul's prohibition against women teaching is not universal. The prohibition, according to Gill, consists in women not to "teach in the church."

There is good commentary on this passage of scripture in an essay titled "What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men (1 Timothy 2:11-15)" (see here at bible.org). I want to quote from this essay and give my amen to it (emphasis mine).

"1 Timothy 2:8-15 imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in all times and places and circumstances as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve."

I am sure that this is correct. The passage should not be looked at as if there was a period after the word teach, so that Paul says "I suffer not a women to teach." This would seem to make any and all teaching by women to be forbidden. What kind of teaching is forbidden is women teaching in the general congregation and over adult men. They certainly may teach children and other women. Notice what Paul wrote to Titus on this point.

"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, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." (Titus 2: 3-5 kjv)

When I was with the Hardshells, they went overboard in their opposition to bible classes and Sunday schools. One of their most common objections was that such classes, with other churches, are often conducted by women and this, say they, is condemned by the apostle. But, I do not think so. We have already seen that women may teach children and may teach privately. Here we see how Paul encourages experienced women to teach other women. So, what is wrong with allowing the sisters in the church to have weekly classes where an aged and learned sister teaches them? Now, I realize that most Hardshell churches are so small in number, that such classes would not be feasible. But, in larger churches they would be beneficial. Talented and gifted women simply ought to be given opportunities to teach as long as it is not in the general assembly and not over adult men.

Again, the writer says:

"For women to be prepared to teach other women (see Titus 2:3-4), they would naturally need to learn and learn well."

This is certainly true. The manner in which she is to learn is different from that of men, as we have observed. But, having been taught, is there no occasion for her to teach others? Do the scriptures not say that women should teach others? Was the commission not given to all disciples, including women? Did Paul not tell Timothy "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." (II Tim. 2:2 NIV) Did he not say in the Hebrew epistle - "you (plural - you all) ought to be teachers"? (5: 12) Does he not say that all who are taught the word ought at some point to be able to teach it to others?

Again, the writer says:

"Similarly, all Christians are encouraged to study the Scriptures; but Paul expressly limits “teaching” to a restricted number who have the gift of teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-30). Of course, if we define teach in a broader sense—the communication of Christian truth through private conversation, family devotions, etc.—we may conclude that all Christians do indeed “teach.”"

This is the very thing I have been affirming and demonstrating from the above cited scriptures.

Next, the writer deals with whether the verb "teach" is to be connected with "over the man" or whether only "usurp" is to be connected with "over the man." I firmly believe, as our writer will state, that both verbs, teach and usurp, are to be joined with the words "over the man." He asks "whether the word man (andros) is the object of the verb teach." In answer he says:

"In prohibiting women from teaching, what exactly is Paul prohibiting? And is he restricting them from all teaching or only from teaching men?"

Exactly! Clearly Paul is not forbidding all teaching by our beloved sisters! God forbid that we would teach such a thing!

Again, the writer says:

"In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word … with careful instruction” [teaching, didache]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance—may be included, depending on how they are done. Still others—evangelistic witnessing, counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine—are not, in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here."

I certainly do agree on this and believe that it represents the teaching of the apostle.

Again, the writer says:

"Is Paul prohibiting women from all teaching? We do not think so. The word man (andros), which is plainly the object of the verb have authority (authentein), should be construed as the object of the verb teach also. This construction is grammatically unobjectionable, and it alone suits the context, in which Paul bases the prohibitions of verse 12 on the created differences between men and women (verse 13). Indeed, as we have argued, this male/female differentiation pervades this passage and comes to direct expression in the word that immediately precedes verse 12, submission. Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4), but prohibits them to teach men."

Again, he is "spot on." Those who think that Paul condemns women teaching children and other women, in Sunday schools or bible classes, have carried Paul's prohibition way too far and done much to hinder godly women exercising their gifts and helping to evangelize the unconverted.

Again, the writer says:

"Again, we must ask the question of application. What kind of modern church practice would Paul be prohibiting to women in saying they are not to have authority over a man? First, we must, of course, recognize that it is not a question of a woman (in the New Testament or in our day) exercising ultimate authority over a man; God and the Scriptures stand over any Christian in a way no minister or human authority ever could. But, within these spheres of authority, we may nevertheless speak legitimately of a governing or ruling function exercised under God by some Christians over others (see 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hebrews 13:17). In the pastoral epistles, this governing activity is ascribed to the elders (see 1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17). Clearly, then, Paul’s prohibition of women’s having authority over a man would exclude a woman from becoming an elder in the way this office is described in the pastoral epistles. By extension, then, women would be debarred from occupying whatever position in a given local church would be equivalent to the pastoral epistles’ governing elder (many churches, for instance, call these people deacons). This would be the case even if a woman’s husband were to give her permission to occupy such a position, for Paul’s concern is not with a woman’s acting independently of her husband or usurping his authority but with the woman’s exercising authority in the church over any man."

I cite such words as these because I could not express my own views any better.

Again, the writer says:

"On the other hand, we do not think Paul’s prohibition should restrict women from voting, with other men and women, in a congregational meeting, for, while the congregation as a whole can be said to be the final authority, this is not the same thing as the exercise of authority ascribed, e.g., to the elders. Nor do we think Paul would intend to prohibit women from most church administrative activities. But what about women teaching or having authority over men in other activities in society generally (for example, in government, business, or education)? While this broader issue is addressed in another essay in this volume (see pages 50-52, 88-89, and 388-393), it is appropriate to note here that Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is specifically the role of men and women in activities within the Christian community, and we question whether the prohibitions in this text can rightly be applied outside that framework."

Again, I give a hearty amen to such commentary.

Now, in closing, as a side point on our passage, I want to remark on what is meant by women being "saved" in child bearing, etc. Many of my Hardshell brethren will use this verse to try to prove their "time salvation" doctrine. What they try to do is to use this verse in order to uphold this proposition (supposition):

"the word saved, salvation, etc., is oftentimes used in the NT where it clearly does not have reference to eternal salvation, and thus, it is justifiable for us to see those words as often talking about a time salvation, and not an eternal salvation."

The error in this presupposition is in failing to give to the word "saved" (or one of its forms) its normal meaning. No one denies that words have a primary and a secondary meaning, and sometimes even several meanings. But, when we take the secondary meaning of a word and give it the primary position, we err. Many examples of this can be given where the Hardshells have done this, besides on the word "saved." No one denies that the word "saved" sometimes denotes a temporal or time salvation that is totally unconnected with eternal salvation. But, the question is - what is the common primary meaning of the term in the NT? Is it not eternal salvation? In fact, this being so, one should always think of some aspect of eternal salvation when he sees the word, unless the context or common sense dictates otherwise. But, the Hardshells have turned this simple hermeneutic rule upside down. They have made the secondary use of the word "saved" the primary use. But, before I discuss this verse, about women being "saved" in child bearing, I want to give a another example where Hardshells have taken the secondary meaning of a word and made it primary.

They have done this with the word "angel" (Greek ἄγγελος - ang'-el-os), meaning "messenger." The primary or most common use of this word in the NT is a designation for those spiritual non corporeal beings we commonly call "angels." Yet, as all bible scholars and commentators acknowledge, the word sometimes denotes a human messenger, sometimes the pastor of a church or an evangelist. But, this usage is not the prominent or common meaning, but is the exceptional use, or the secondary. But, due to the influence of "Two Seedism" in the history of the Hardshells, they have often taken passages where angels are spoken of, and rather giving them their normal primary meaning, have given them the secondary. Thus the fall of the angels becomes not the fall of heavenly beings, but the fall of preachers!

Saved In Child Bearing

Here is what Dr. Gill wrote on this passage.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved

Not Eve, though no doubt she is saved; since she had a sense of her sin, and shame for it, a revelation of the Messiah to her, and faith in him; see ( Genesis 3:7 Genesis 3:8 Genesis 3:15 ) ( 4:2 ). But rather any woman, particularly such as profess godliness, who shall be saved

Notice first that Gill sees no problem believing that eternal salvation is under consideration. Also, notice how he believes that Eve had faith in the Messiah! This is denied by our Hardshell brethren who tell us that people did not believe the gospel in the OT! That they had no revelation to believe! That they were "unbelievers" since they did not have NT revelation!

in childbearing;

which is to be understood not of a temporal salvation, or being saved through childbearing, through the perilous time, and be delivered out of it; for though this is generally the case, yet not always, nor always the case of good women. 

Clearly Gill was no Hardshell! Notice he says "which is...not of a temporal salvation"!

Gill continues:

Rachel died in childbed: the Jews say F20, for three transgressions women die in childbearing; because they do not take care of their menstrues, and of the cake of the firstfruits, and of lighting the lamp (when the sabbath approaches). But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant; not that bearing children is the cause, condition, or means of salvation; for as this is not God's way of salvation, so it confines the salvation of women to childbearing ones; and which must give an uneasy reflection to maidens, and women that never bore any; but rather the meaning is, that good women shall be saved, notwithstanding their bearing and bringing forth children in pain and sorrow, according to the original curse, in ( Genesis 3:16 ). And so the words administer some comfort to women, in their present situation of subjection and sorrow; though they may be rendered impersonally thus, "notwithstanding there is salvation through the birth of a son": and the sense is, that notwithstanding the fall of man by the means of the woman, yet there is salvation for both men and women, through the birth of Immanuel, the child born, and Son given; at whose birth, the angels sung peace on earth, good will to men; through the true Messiah, the seed of the woman, through the incarnate Saviour, who was made of a woman, there is salvation for lost sinners: he was born of a woman, and came into the world in order to obtain salvation for them; and he has effected it, and it is in him, for all such who apply to him for it; and with it all true believers, men and women, shall be saved through him,

Notice how he is firm in saying "But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant"! Women are saved by being the means of Christ coming into the world! So, this being the right interpretation, why insist that the verse cannot be talking about eternal salvation?

if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.

The Vulgate Latin version reads in the singular, "if she continues", &c. but the sense is the same; for the "she", or woman, is to be taken in a collective sense, as it is in the context, for many women; even for such as profess faith and godliness. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render the words, "she shall be saved by her children", if they continue i.e. she shall be saved by bearing of children, and bringing of them up in a religious way; if they, the children, continue as they were brought up (this was the view of Elder Sonny Pyles!); which is a very strange rendering of the words, and is as strange an interpretation of them (amen to that!); and yet is what many have given into, but needs no confutation. The meaning of the words is, that there is salvation through the incarnate Messiah, for all sorts of persons; for all men and women who believe in him, with that faith which works by love, and shows itself in holiness and sobriety; provided that they continue herein. For there are some that profess these things, that have only a temporary faith, and feigned love, and not true holiness; and these fall away, and are not saved; but such who have these graces in truth, as they do, and shall continue in them, so they shall certainly be saved.

Why would Elder Pyles and other Hardshells want to make "if they continue" to refer to the children of female Christians? Is it not because they deny perseverance and profess only preservation? But, not only is eternal salvation under consideration, but perseverance is put as what is required for it. Further, Gill's view is the real "Old Baptist" teaching.

May Women Vote In Church Decisions? VII

Having seen that the scriptures support congregational government, and that congregational voting is an integral part of that government, we were also able to see how the female members took part in such voting. So, whatever a woman's being "silent" in the church involves, and whatever not "speaking" therein condemns, it does not forbid her from voting; Nor, as we have seen, does it disallow her speaking in every way.

In this and the next posting we will examine the chief passages of scripture that demand that women keep silence in the assemblies and that forbid them to speak.

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all (the members - SG) speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all (the members - SG)  prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you (the members - SG)  of a truth. How is it then, brethren? (does Paul here switch from addressing all the members to addressing only the male members? SG) when ye (ye all the brothers, or ye all the members? SG) come together, every one of you (who is the "you" here? SG) hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man ("man" here is not in the original Greek, rather it is literally "anyone" SG) speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him (masculine gender in Greek - SG) keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all (all the members or just male prophets? - SG) prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.  And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Cor. 14: 23-35 kjv)

The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is by no means easy. The difficulties, as it relates to a woman's silence, are obvious. With that in mind, let us begin with some initial observations about this passage.

First, note that the apostle is giving instructions about times when the whole church assembles or congregates. He speaks of the time when "the whole church be come together." Paul more than once speaks of the time when the members "come together" as a church. Whether any of his instructions are applicable to smaller sub groups, within the church, that may assemble, is not directly under review. Paul is discussing what occurs "in the churches," or "in the assemblies," in mixed assemblies of men and women, when they are assembled for worship and for instruction.

Second, generally the apostle seems to be addressing all the members, male and female, and the pronouns should be viewed with that fact in mind. However, at times, in the above words, as well as in the epistle generally, he seems to speak only to the male members by his saying "brothers."

Third, the command to be "silent" is also, in one instance at least, addressed to all, men included, for certain circumstances. When a speaker is speaking, he is not to be interrupted. A person should wait till a speaker is finished before attempting to speak. Take turns, says the apostle. Until it is your turn, do not speak.

Fourth, the words "as in all the churches of the saints," should be viewed as a part of verse 34 rather than verse 33, as many commentators have observed. In the original Greek, there were no chapters and verses, and no punctuation. Thus, each person must judge, based upon rules of interpretation, where periods, commas, colons, semicolons, quotation marks, parenthesis, etc., are to be placed. This being so, what Paul says about the woman's place in the general meetings of the church is not for Corinth only, but for all the churches. So, we read "as in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent..."

Fifth, "speaking in tongues" and "prophesying" were not strictly male activities. This, as we will see, is clearly seen from other passages of scripture, and seems indicated even in these words from I Corinthians chapter fourteen.

Sixth, it seems that Paul's prohibition against women speaking, and his command for them to be in silence, contradicts not only what he wrote elsewhere in his epistles, but what he has already stated in this very epistle.

Women Speaking in Tongues & Prophesying

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." (Acts 2:1-5 kjv)

Who is designated by Luke the historian when he says "they were all"? Clearly it was the 120 who, by Christ's instruction, were tarrying in Jerusalem and waiting for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 1:13-15) And, many women were part of that special group, including Mary, the mother of our Lord. Luke writes that the apostles, in this waiting period of time, were "with the women." So, when the text says "they were all," there can be no doubt that the sisters were included. What occurred on this day was not restricted to the male members. "They were all" alike "filled with the Holy Ghost," and they all, male and female, spoke in tongues, in Spirit given "utterance." So, clearly, the sisters were not silent in the church at this time, and did not refrain from speaking.

Certainly the apostle Paul knew these things. Surely he was not condemning what the sisters did on that glorious day. How could he when the sisters spoke by the moving of the Spirit? In Peter's explanation of these things to the Jerusalem crowd, he said:

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:" (16-18)

Notice that women, "daughters," the Lord's "handmaidens," not only spoke in tongues, uttering in the assembly glorious things, but they prophesied too. A person cannot speak in tongues and prophesy in silence. Nor was it a shame for the women to so speak in the assembly on the day of Pentecost. Luke also records these words at the close of his account of that Pentecostal day.

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (vs. 47)

Certainly the "praising" was done by all the Jerusalem assembly's members, both male and female. Further, it is hard to believe that this "praising" was done in silence, with no audible words spoken. But, more on that later. Now let us look at Paul's words in I Cor. 11, just three chapters before his remarks of chapter 14.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." (11: 3-5)

Though speaking in tongues is not mentioned, it is included. Paul says that "every woman," every Christian woman in the congregation, is to pray, prophesy, or speak in tongues with a head covering. But, the problem is this: how can he give approval for women to do these things, which involve speaking and not being silent, and yet later command women not to speak and to remain silent? Is this not clearly a contradiction?

Years ago, when discussing these things with my father, who was against women voting in church, and was somewhat strict on his interpretation of I Corinthians 14: 33-34, I asked him about Paul's allowance of women prophesying and praying in church per 11: 3-5 and how he harmonized the two passages. His reply was that the praying and prophesying that women may do, with the head covering, was to be done in silence. Now, I realize that a person can pray in silence, without speaking aloud. But, it is kind of hard to think that the prophesying Paul has reference to was something women were permitted to do, but only in silence. Father's explanation is in line with what the learned Baptist commentator wrote.

Wrote John Gill:

"Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) (1 Timothy 2:12) but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies."

I find this a stretching of the text. To mentally "join in" the audible praying and preaching, or to "attend on" prophesying, cannot be what Paul intends. When a person says that so and so "prophesied," or "preached," we do not understand that such words mean only that someone heard and acquiesced prophesying and preaching. It seems that Dr. Gill chose to alter the meaning of I Cor. 11 rather than alter the meaning of I Cor. 14.

Two things seem clear. First, that it was not forbidden for women to speak in the assembly when filled with the Spirit and given utterance by the Spirit to either speak in tongues, pray, or to prophesy. Second, that in spite of these facts Paul nevertheless forbids women to speak in I Cor. 14. There is clearly an incongruity, and a seeming contradiction. Yet, we know, there are no real contradictions in God's word. In some way, both passages are true in spite of the seeming contradiction. Our job is to see how they harmonize. Further, it seems odd that Paul would forbid women to speak, whether as a prophetess or in tongues, and then say "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." (I Cor. 14:39) Is Paul, in verses 34-35 forbidding women to speak absolutely and without exception?

In the Old Testament we have Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses, who was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20). There were others as well. In the New Testament, another prophetess, Anna (Luke 2:36–37), spoke in the Temple to the people about the Lord Jesus.  Four prophetesses are mentioned in Acts 21:9, being the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist.

The Rule & The Exceptions

It is a truth that nearly all rules, if not all, have exceptions. This is a truth generally recognized by all and so we often hear it said - "There are exceptions to every rule." Let me give some proof of this in both scripture and in law and in every day conversation.

It is written in Scripture - "it is appointed for men to die once" (Hebrews 9:27). That is the general rule. However, there have been cases of people who died twice (1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 8:5, Matthew 27:52, Mark 5:25, John 11:44). The Bible tells us that these people were raised, but died naturally again. Further, two men, Enoch and Elijah, did not die even once.

"For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (I Cor. 15:27)

In this verse Paul gives the rule - "all things are put under his feet." But, he also gives us an obvious exception to that rule. Of course the one who put all things under the feet of Christ is not part of that "all things." He is the exception to the generalization.

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." (I Cor. 7:27)

If a man is married, he ought not to seek a divorce. That is the rule. But, are there no exceptions? Yes. Jesus gave infidelity as a reason and Paul gave desertion as another. (Matt. 19:9; I Cor. 7: 15) Further, if one is single, Paul gives a rule (for the Corinthians at the time he is writing) - "seek not a wife." But, obviously the exception is - "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (I Cor. 7:9)

"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (I Cor. 7:5)

The rule for married believers is - "defraud ye not one another" (in regard to sexual relations). But, there is a stated exception - "except it be with consent for a time..."

"Drink no longer water." (I Tim. 5:23)

Here Paul gives Timothy a rule to follow to help him with his weak stomach. Is it an ironclad rule? Is it an absolute without exceptions? Clearly not.

The OT law said "no work (or labor expended) on the seventh day." But, Jesus taught that if your animal fell into a pit on the Sabbath and needed to be saved, expending labor to save it was an allowable exception.

Not only do we have rules given in scripture that obviously have exceptions, but we have them all around us. For example, there are speed limit rules. Who does not realize that there are exceptions to those rules? You go into a library or a theater and the rule is to be quiet and not to speak. But, are there not exceptions? Of course there are. You go to the park and you see a sign that says "no vehicles in the park." That is the rule, but obviously there are exceptions. Does it forbid police vehicles or ambulances when necessary?

So, in regard to Paul's rule that says "sisters must keep quiet in church meetings," there are indeed exceptions. What we need to understand however, is that this is the rule. Some make the mistake of seeing women speaking in church as the rule and their being quiet is the exception! But, the reverse is the case. So, which is the exception and which is the rule? Is I Cor. 11:3-5, concerning women speaking in the church, the rule and I Cor. 14:33-34 the exception? Or, is it the other way around? Clearly the latter.

Women's Silence Not Absolute (without exceptions)

Many of those who are fairly absolutist about Paul's rule of silence for women will nevertheless allow exceptions. Father allowed exceptions in much the same way Dr. Gill did. Women could confess in church, and could sing, and could reply to questions when asked by the church or elders, etc. Wrote Dr. Gill (emphasis mine):

for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church;

See what Dr. Gill did? He stated the rule as given by the apostle - "women are not permitted to speak in the public assemblies." But, then he recognizes exceptions! He says "all speaking is not prohibited." Then he gives examples. So, nearly all allow exceptions to Paul's rule. Some allow more, some less. There are some, however, who are very strict on the matter and will not allow any exceptions to the rule. Wrote one historian on this matter (emphasis mine):

From Tertullian[3] to Thomas Aquinas[4], commentators concluded that women could not even sing or pray audibly among men. Although the Reformers relaxed some of these restrictions, as late as the 1890s certain Presbyterians still forbade women’s singing in the context of church worship. (Grenz 1995:121) (see here for citations)

This same writer wrote:

"If Paul condones verbal ministry from women in chapter 11 it is very unlikely that he censures it in chapter 14. Paul was probably prohibiting a certain form of speech from the women in 14:34-35. Several theologians have tried to identify the type of speech that Paul appears to be disallowing."

Clearly Paul is condemning women teaching a mixed assembly that includes male adults. He is condemning women in any way "usurping authority over the man." But, more on that in the next posting when we look at Paul's words to Timothy in 2: 12 - "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

May Women Vote In Church Decisions? VI

In this posting we will continue to give scripture that supports a women's right to vote when a congregational vote is called for. After concluding this affirmative series, we will look at the arguments made by those who deny a woman's right to vote or to hold any church offices.

Example #6 - Chosen By The Church

"And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:" (II Cor. 8: 18-19 kjv)

Again, not a lot of comment is needed here. It seems the burden is on those who deny the women's vote to show how the choice of these churches was made only by the male members of the church. A brother was chosen by the churches. In the case of each church, this was a congregational decision. Surely the sisters are part of the church.

Example #7 - Church Approval

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." (I Cor. 16: 1-3 kjv)

These words are addressed "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" and not to the elders only, nor to the "brothers" only. This being so, when Paul says "whomsoever ye shall approve," the "ye" is a reference to the entire assembly.

Example #8 - Church Disciplinary Action

"I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—by no means referring to this world's immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what is it to me to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are inside? But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

The key question for us here, in regard to this passage and its relation to our study question, is to determine who does the pronoun "you" refer to in Paul's counsel. A prima facie reading of the text cannot draw any conclusion other than the entire congregation is in view and not simply the leadership or the male members. Paul did not begin by saying "brothers, I wrote unto you," nor "pastors, I wrote unto you," but "church, I wrote unto you." The whole church is here called to exercise discipline, which is in keeping with Christ's teaching on conflict resolution in Matthew 18:15-20, as previously observed. The body of believers is the final court of appeal, or "where the buck stops," scripturally speaking.

Further, when Paul says "do you not judge" he is not speaking to one group within the assembly, but to all the members of it. To "judge" involves decision making and voicing that opinion and decision in some kind of vote.

When Paul says "don't any of you eat or drink" with the immoral person, how are the women members not also addressed? Are Paul's words not as much addressed to them as to the male members?

In order to expand upon what Paul is here addressing to the entire membership of Corinth, let us cite from chapter six.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" (6: 1-5)

Surely "any of you" includes the female members of the church. If any member, male or female, has "a matter against another" member, then they are to "go to" or "before" those who are are called "the saints." Notice how Paul's instruction is in perfect keeping with the teaching of Christ in Matthew 18. How can one "go before" a court of law and not speak? How can a sister "go before" the saints, before the church, and remain silent? Obviously she cannot. Thus, Paul's later instruction to this same church about a woman being "silent" in the assembly, cannot cancel out this instruction. Obviously, his instruction about women being "silent" has some exceptions. But, more on that when we look at that particular verse and others that those of the opposing view offer to support their side.

I find it a bit ironic that those in favor of the view that women are forbidden to vote or speak in any way in the church would be forced to exclude women from the category of those Paul describes as being "least esteemed in the church"!

Who is to judge in the church? The saints at Corinth. Are the male members the only saints in the congregation? Who is to judge angels and the evil world at the Apocalypse? Is it not all the saints, male and female?

James Attebury ("Christian Theology and Apologetics") wrote the following good words (emphasis mine - see here) in an article titled "The Biblical Basis for Congregational Voting":

"Where in the Bible does it talk about church voting? Many Christians view the practice as an extra-biblical tradition created to reflect the democratic values of America rather than being derived from scriptural exegesis. But there is both explicit and implicit evidence from Scripture to support the practice in the local church. While not every decision in the church has to be decided by congregational voting (I’m not a fan of long business meetings and shepherds have an obligation to lead the sheep), major decisions involving church discipline must involve the decision of the entire congregation in order to be faithful to Scripture."

I certainly do agree with Attebury that a lot of decisions don't need a direct vote of the church and can be made by officers and committees appointed by the church. He is certainly correct in affirming that the NT teaches that "major decisions" must surely involve "the decision of the entire congregation," including women, "in order to be faithful to Scripture."

Attebury wrote further:

"In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul urges the Corinthian church to excommunicate and remove from its membership a professing Christian who was having sexual relations with his father’s wife. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, we see that the church followed Paul’s instructions and now this person has repented of their sins: “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough.” The phrase “punishment by the majority” is an allusion to the majority decision within the church to remove this sinning member from the membership. A majority decision presupposes a means by which to determine whether or not a majority of the Corinthian church is in agreement with Paul’s instructions. It is true that the church didn’t have much of a choice in the matter because Paul is an apostle, but a decision still had to be made. Even apostolic authority does not override the necessity of a congregational decision on whether or not to exercise church discipline. This is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 18:17: “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” The truth that the entire church is the last and final stage of church discipline makes necessary a means by which to determine whether or not the entire church is in agreement with the decision to remove the person from membership. Church voting provides the only means by which to assess the decisions of the members of the congregation. Because they are the ones who voted him in, they must be the ones to vote him out."

Again, these things seem perfectly clear from the texts cited.

May Women Vote In Church Decisions? V

In this posting we will continue to present scripture that shows that congregations vote on matters and that this voting includes the female members. We have already looked at three examples that demonstrate this fact.

Example #4 - Church Sent

"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11: 22 kjv)

Who sent Barnabas? Who is designated by the pronoun "they"? Is it the elders? Is it only the brothers, the male members? Is it not rather "the church"? And, is it not the whole church, and not merely a part of it? Are the sisters not part of "the church"?

Surely this sending forth of Barnabas was an act of a local congregation and evidences that congregational government was in existence and that all the members of that congregation, both men and women, had a voice or vote in what the congregation did. In the previous posting we already noticed Acts 15: 22 - "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." Here in Acts 11: 22, this same mother church, with the most godly of members, including Mary the mother of our Lord, and other godly women, acted in unison. There is no hint that the sisters were forbidden to vote or to participate in congregational acts and government.

Example #5 - Ordination Involves Congregational Voting

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." (Acts 14: 23 kjv)

How does this verse support congregational government and women voting in church business? It is supported in the fact of ordination, in the words "they had ordained them elders in every church." 

In demonstrating this, let me begin by citing the commentary of Dr. John Gill, from his Body of Practical Divinity, in the section dealing with church officers. He wrote (emphasis mine):

3b7. The election and call of them, with their acceptance, is ordination. The essence of ordination lies in the voluntary choice and call of the people, and in the voluntary acceptance of that call by the person chosen and called; for this affair must be by mutual consent and agreement, which joins them together as pastor and people." 

Notice that "the essence of ordination" necessarily involves "the voluntary choice and call of the people," or congregation. So, the essence of ordination is the vote of the congregation, the whole church, which must include every member, including the female members.

Dr. Gill continued:

"And this is done among themselves; and public ordination, so called, is no other than a declaration of that. Election and ordination are spoken of as the same; the latter is expressed and explained by the former. It is said of Christ, that he "ordained twelve", #Mr 3:14 that is, he chose them to the office of apostleship, as he himself explains it, #Joh 6:70 see #Ac 1:2. Paul and Barnabas are said to "ordain elders in every church", #Ac 14:23 or to choose them {3}; that is, they gave orders and directions to every church, as to the choice of elders over them...ordinary officers, as elders and pastors of churches, were chosen and ordained by the votes of the people, expressed by stretching out their hands; thus it is said of the apostles, #Ac 14:23 "When they had ordained them elders in every church", ceirotonhsantev, by taking the suffrages and votes of the members of the churches, shown by the stretching out of their hands, as the word signifies {5}; and which they directed them to, and upon it declared the elders duly elected and ordained."

Notice that "ordination" denotes being "chosen and ordained by the votes of the people" and "taking the suffrages and votes of the members of the churches." Surely this involves the voting of the female members.

Dr. Gill continued:

Though there was cheirotoneō, "a stretching out of the hands"; yet there was no ceiroyesia, "imposition of hands", used at the ordination; neither of extraordinary officers, as apostles; nor of ordinary pastors or elders of churches, in the times of Christ and his apostles...The apostles are said to "ordain elders in every church", not by laying their hands upon them, but by taking the votes of the people, on the stretching out of their hands; when they declared the elders duly elected and ordained, as before observed. The apostle Paul directed Titus, #Tit 1:5 to "ordain elders in every city"; that is, in such sort and manner as he and Barnabas had done in the above instance; but gave him no orders and instructions to lay hands upon them; which he would not have omitted, had it been material, and so essential to ordination as some make it to be: and if he was to ordain elders by the laying on of his hands, then not by the hands of a presbytery, since he was a single person; and if this was to be done by him as a bishop, which some say he was, though the subscription of the epistle to him not being genuine, which asserts it, is no proof of it, it would justify ordination by a diocesan bishop.

Though I would love to divert and discuss the errors that many Baptists, including the Hardshells, have accepted in regard to being "ordained," and about what is the use and purpose of a "presbytery," I will not do so now. Perhaps I can enlarge upon this in the future. But, Dr. Gill is "spot on" in these remarks about what it means to be "ordained" as a church office holder. It does not mean one has hands laid on him by a "presbytery," oftentimes with elders not a part of the church doing the ordaining, but rather means that a church has voted that person into the office. Further, ordination being the result of a congregational vote, it must be a vote of the whole congregation, which includes the sisters.

Dr. Gill continued:

3b9c. No instance can be given of hands being laid on any ordinary minister, pastor or elder, at his ordination; nor, indeed, of hands being laid on any, upon whatsoever account, but by extraordinary persons; nor by them upon any ministers, but extraordinary ones; and even then not at and for the ordination of them. The instance in #Ac 13:1-3 is no proof of laying on of hands at the ordination of a pastor or elder of a church; Paul and Barnabas were extraordinary persons, apostolical men, and were never ordained pastors or elders to any particular church; nor is there the least hint given of any such ordination of them at that time; nor was this the first time of the separation of them to the sacred office of the ministry: they had been in it, and had exercised it long before, and in as public a manner as afterwards: and what they were now separated to was some peculiar and extraordinary work and service {14} the Holy Ghost had for them to do in foreign parts, whither they travelled; and the persons who were directed by him to separate them to it, were extraordinary ones also; and their, prayers for them, with the rite of imposition of hands, seem only to express their good wishes for a prosperous success in their work {15}: and it may be observed, that this rite was used, not "at", but "after" the separation of them to the work and service into which they were appointed, and after fasting and prayer for them: this was the last act done, just when upon their departure; for so it is said, "And when they had fasted and prayed", kai epiyentev tav ceirav autoiv, "then putting hands upon them, they sent them away", or dismissed them with this token, or sign of their good wishes for them. The apostle Paul, indeed, speaks of the hands of the presbytery being laid upon Timothy, #1Ti 4:14 but it should be observed, that Timothy was an extraordinary officer in the church, an evangelist, and was not chosen or ordained a pastor of any particular church; nor did he reside in anyone place for any length of time; the subscription of the "second" epistle to him being not to be depended upon as genuine, no more than of that to Titus {16}; and therefore he can be no instance of imposition of hands at the ordination of any ordinary, elder, or pastor of a church; and who the presbytery were who laid hands on him, be it upon what account it may, they must be extraordinary persons through whose hands an extraordinary gift was conveyed: we are sure the apostle Paul was one, since he expressly speaks of a gift which Timothy had "by the putting on of his hands"; and it can scarcely be thought that any other should join with herein but an apostolical man; very probably Silas; see #Ac 16:1,19. However, upon the whole, it appears to be an extraordinary affair transacted by extraordinary persons, on an extraordinary one, and by it an extraordinary gift was conveyed; which no man of modesty will assume to himself a power of conveying: And let it be observed, it was not an "office", but a "gift", which was conveyed this way; see #1Ti 4:14 2Ti 1:6.

The Greek word cheirotoneō, translated "ordained," according to Strong denotes:

to vote by stretching out the hand
to create or appoint by vote: one to have charge of some office or duty
to elect, create, appoint

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers makes these comments:

(23) And when they had ordained them elders.—The word for “ordained” occurs in the New Testament here and in 2 Corinthians 8:19, where it is translated “chosen,” and certainly seems to imply popular election (election by show of hands), which is, indeed, the natural meaning of the word.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

And widen they had ordained - χειροτονήσαντες cheirotonēsantes. The word "ordain" we now use in an ecclesiastical sense, to denote "a setting apart to an office by the imposition of hands." But it is evident that the word here is not employed in that sense. That imposition of hands might have occurred in setting apart afterward to this office is certainly possible, but it is not implied in the word employed here, and did not take place in the transaction to which this word refers. The word occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 8:19, where it is applied to Luke, and translated, "who was also chosen of the church (that is, appointed or elected by suffrage by the churches) to travel with us, etc." The verb properly denotes "to stretch out the hand"; and as it was customary to elect to office, or to vote, by stretching out or elevating the hand, so the word simply means "to elect, appoint, or designate to any office." The word here refers simply to an "election" or "appointment" of the elders. It is said, indeed, that Paul and Barnabas did this. But probably all that is meant by it is that they presided in the assembly when the choice was made. It does not mean that they appointed them without consulting the church; but it evidently means that they appointed them in the usual way of appointing officers, by the suffrages of the people.

In the first article in this series I cited "Baptist Ecclesiology: A Faithful Application Of New Testament Principles" by Daryl C. Cornett, and now wish to cite from that same work seeing it pertains to what is meant by being "ordained" by a church. Keep in mind that Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest Particular Baptists who ever lived, was the successor of Dr. Gill, taking over the pastorship of the church Gill had previously pastored.

Wrote Cornett:

"Before 1820 it was not uncommon for some Baptist churches to utilize a plurality of eldership. These congregations viewed the elders as equal in their office but different in their duties. Some elders were charged with pastoral duties and some with administrative leadership of the church. However, even within congregations with lay elders, ultimate authority resided in the congregation corporately. Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle employed the use of elders when most Baptist churches did not. In Spurgeon’s congregation the elders were charged with the duties of examining candidates for church membership, inquiring into absentee members, looking into matters for church discipline, caring for the sick, conducting prayer meetings and catechesis classes, and overseeing evangelistic efforts. However, these elders performed their duties in the context of congregational polity and were not ordained. In fact, Spurgeon rejected the practice of ordination altogether. He believed that the manner in which ordination was commonly practiced, with the participation of a council of properly ordained pastors from various churches, detracted from congregational authority and implied a kind of apostolic succession in which authority was passed from one minister to another instead of through the congregation."

Today's Baptist churches need to get away from Presbyterianism on this issue.

In conclusion, we see further evidence how "let your women keep silence in the churches" does not intend that they have no vote in congregational voting.

May Women Vote In Church Decisions? IV

In this posting we will continue to offer reasons from scripture why it is allowable for women to vote in the church when a congregational vote is called for.

Example #2 - Tell It To The Church

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matt. 18: 15-17)

Nobody denies that "the church" includes both male and female members. Thus, for something to be told to "the church" is to be told to all the members, both male and female. Further, none will deny that this advice, though directed towards two who are "brothers," and who have become involved in a dispute involving trespass and fault, is also applicable to sisters. The advice takes into consideration offences that come between 1) two brothers, or 2) two sisters, or 3) one sister against one brother. If a sister trespasses or offends another sister, then they are to each follow this advice. This being so, who can deny that a sister must at some point bring such a matter to the church and "tell it"? But, how can she "tell it to the church" if she is forbidden in all cases to speak in the assembly? Or to remain absolutely silent at all times in the assembly?

Those who interpret I Corinthians 14: 34 ("Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak") strictly and absolutely, and without exceptions, must not allow aggrieved sisters to exercise the godly discipline of Matthew 18 and to eventually "tell it to the church" when reconciliation has not occurred. Those who would favor the strict absolutist view of I Cor. 14: 34 could argue that sisters, in such cases, could tell it to deacons or elders, or to some other male members, who then would "tell it to the church," and thus the sisters would be telling it to the church indirectly. But, this seems unbelievable. Church trials are no different from other trials. At some point the parties involved must speak directly to the judge and jury, which is what "the church" is.

Consider also that such church trials involve the whole church, which must include the women. "Tell it to the church" means "tell it to the whole church," which includes female members. But, why "tell it" to the female members if they are not to have any "say" in the judgment to be rendered by the church? Again, a strict interpretation of I Cor. 14:34 could lead one to argue that the female members, in having a "say" in the trial, would have to give their judgments to a male member who would then relate it to the church. But, again, I find this not tenable or likely.

All in all, I believe that Matthew 18: 15-17 upholds the women's right to vote in the church when a decision is needed by the church in such trials. Of course, every sister in such cases needs to always speak only when spoken to, and should never, on such occasions, "usurp authority over the men," and should reserve comments and questions and not speak unless something is being overlooked by the male members. Further, sisters who have believing husbands who are also members of the church, should let their husbands speak for them.

Example #3 - "With The Whole Church"

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:" (Acts 15: 22 KJV)

Who can deny that "the whole church" includes the female members? This being so, the act of sending, being an act of the congregation, involved the whole congregation making a decision. Obviously some kind of canvassing of the membership took place, probably by a vote, a vote in which each member took a part. This being so, the prohibition of I Cor. 14: 34 does not forbid women voting in such things.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says this about the passage (emphasis mine):

"The apostles and elders, with the whole church.—The latter words are important, as showing the position occupied by the laity. If they concurred in the letter, it must have been submitted to their approval, and the right to approve involves the power to reject and, probably, to modify."

This verse therefore clearly upholds a congregational form of government and women members having a right to vote and voice their opinion. This commentary also, like others, correctly points out that a better translation of "To send chosen men" is "to choose and send men," saying "Literally, the participle being active in meaning, to choose and send men." Thus, the whole church not merely voted to send men, but voted on who to send.

Albert Barnes in his "Notes" writes:

With the whole church - All the Christians who were there assembled together. They concurred in the sentiment, and expressed their approbation in the letter that was sent, Acts 15:23. Whether they were consulted does not particularly appear. But as it is not probable that they would volunteer an opinion unless they were consulted, it seems most reasonable to suppose that the apostles and elders submitted the case to them for their approbation. It would seem that the apostles and elders deliberated on it, and decided it; but still, for the sake of peace and unity, they also took measures to ascertain that their decision agreed with the sentiment of the church.

Thus, so far, we have presented three passages of scripture that seem clearly to give female members of the church the right to vote when the assembly is convened to conduct business. In the next several postings we will continue to present such evidence from the scriptures.

Garrett Trying To Get People To Leave?

People wrongly think that all my writing against the errors of the "Primitive Baptists" is for the purpose of getting people to leave the "Primitive Baptist Church." That is really not true. What I am trying to do is to get them rather to "return" to the real "Primitive Baptist Church." Today's Hardshells who erroneously call themselves "Primitive Baptists" are really not what they claim, having already left the true Primitive Baptists. I became a true "primitive" Baptist when I left the Hardshells and saw their errors and embraced the real "old school" truth respecting means in regeneration, the necessity of conversion and perseverance for eternal salvation, the absolute predestination of all things, etc. Those elders who have "left" the Hardshells, such as elders Kevin Fralick, Jeremy Sarber, Stephen Emmons, Ernie Fletcher, Brad Whitley, and several others, have not left the true Primitive Baptists, but an imposter group, a cult, and have come back home to the real old Baptist faith.

I use to tell my father - "dad, I am more old Baptist than you are." How can we prove who is really "primitive" or "original" Baptists? If we had a trial or contest to decide the question, what criteria would we use? Would we not check church history to see who departed from the faith of our fathers? Today's Hardshells cannot prove that their aberrant views are the historic teaching of the ancient Baptists. They cannot trace their lineage any further back than the middle to late 19th century.

So, my Hardshell brethren and sisters, I invite you to come back to the faith of your fathers, to truly become "primitive"! Those today who call themselves "primitive" are not really primitive at all as I have proven.

May Women Vote In Church Decisions? III

Having made some preliminary remarks on our topic and having looked at the history of the debate, we will now begin an examination of the scriptures and arguments involved in this debate. The first thing I wish to prove is that NT scripture often speaks of things that were done by a church, by the whole church, often by a vote or some way of determining the mind of the church, and this would include every member, including women. Further, if this is proven, the case for women voting is sustained, and verses that require a woman's silence do not preclude her voting in a church conference.

Example #1 - Choice of Deacons

"And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."   (Acts 6: 1-6)

The first thing to notice in analyzing this passage is to distinguish some of the various groups and sub groups mentioned in the passage. First, there is that large group of disciples ("the number of the disciples" and "the multitude of the disciples"). Regarding this group, women are clearly included. Second, there is the group within the larger group and referred to as "the Grecians," and that group of "their widows," in contrast to "the Hebrews" and by implication "their widows." Third, "the twelve" is mentioned, which is of course the apostolic group. Fourth, there is that group of disciples who are addressed as "brethren" (Greek "adelphoi"). Fifth, you have "seven men." Sixth, you have "the whole multitude."

In this selection of the first deacons, who did the choosing of them? Clearly it is the "brethren." Further, it is these "brethren" that the apostles addressed and charged with the task of choosing "seven men." So, thus far, the choosing of deacons was to be done by the male members, unless the Greek word "adelphoi" may signify the entire fraternity of the church, including men and women. Some Greek scholars argue that the plural "adelphoi" is often used in the epistles in such a sense. Others do not agree and contend that "adelphoi" never includes women. In this passage I think it is fairly certain that "brethren" or "brothers" does not include the sisters. It was the brothers in the church that the apostles addressed and gave the responsibility of choosing a man, or brother, from among them to be deacons. Thus, so far, there is nothing in this passage that shows that the entire church, with the women, were involved in this selection or nominating process (unless, as stated, "adelphoi" includes the sisters - for those who want to research this further see here).

The New International Version translates "adelphoi" as "brothers and sisters," giving the translation as "Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you." Other translations do the same. If this is proper, then such would lend credence to 1) women members/disciples being involved in the choosing of deacons, and 2) women being allowed to be chosen as deacons. The latter fact may be implied from the words "from among you." Is the idea "from among you brothers" (male members) or "from among you brothers and sisters" (male and female members)?

It is reasonable, however, that "adelphoi" cannot include sisters, at least in this passage, because the apostles mention choosing seven "men," from the Greek word "andros," a masculine noun meaning a male. So, even if we grant that "adelphoi" denotes the whole church, including female members, there is still the apostolic limitation of choosing from among the whole church "seven MEN," not seven men and women. And, the fact that only men were chosen gives strong support to the limitation of the choice being limited to "men," and that it was the "brothers," the male members who did the choosing. Had the apostles wanted the whole church, male and female, to do the selecting of the candidates, then clearly "adelphoi" must include the women and is being used as a synonym for "the whole multitude of the disciples." Also, had the apostles desired that women be deacons, or "deaconesses," then they would have used "anthropoi" rather than "andros." In other words, they would have said "choose seven people (humans, male or female)" instead of "choose seven men (males)."

In the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, they say this about the use of "adelphoi" in this passage - "One of the earliest names employed in addressing the members of the Church." Many Greek scholars agree that often "adelphoi" includes women. If this is the case in Acts 6, then clearly there is authority for women to be given a voice in the choosing of deacons.

But, even if we allow that Paul is addressing only the male members in his use of the word "brethren," and thus limiting the selection of deacons to the male members, nevertheless such a selection required the acquiescence of the whole church. This is obvious because 1) the apostles called the whole church together, male and female, and addressed them all ("the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said") and 2) the selection of the seven is said to have met with agreement from the whole church ("the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose").

In the statement "and they chose," does the pronoun "they" refer to "the brothers" (adelphoi) or to "the whole multitude"? Further, in the statement "they set them before the apostles," who are designated by the pronoun "they"? In the former case, if to the "whole multitude," which is unlikely, then 1) credence is given to the view that "adelphoi" does include sisters, and 2) then the entire church voted or had a voice in the choosing of these seven men. Thus, this in itself is sufficient justification for women being given a voice or vote when choosing deacons. In the latter case, it is doubtful that the whole multitude personally "set" the seven men before the apostles. It is rather probable that a few of the brothers actually ushered the seven men into the immediate presence of the apostles for them to lay their hands upon them. But, even in this case, it is a situation where the ushers were acting on behalf of the entire church and what is done by an agent may be said to be done by the principal.

Further, the word "pleased" is from the Greek word areskō and denotes what is approved or agreeable. How would one know if such "pleased" the whole church unless a vote of some kind were taken?

Keep in mind that Acts 6 and the choosing of these seven deacons is one of the passages that is used 1) to support congregational government, and 2) women participating in congregational voting. This is one of the verses that the Baptists who wrote the 1689 Confession referred to in upholding these views.

Other Editors Invited

I have invited Elder Jeremy Sarber and Elder Stephen Emmons to become contributing editors on the Old Baptist Test blog. I hope they will accept and begin writing articles here. Brother Sarber has his own web site and so he may choose to keep his writings there. This blog exists to help people who are either presently in the Hardshell church or contemplating joining it. We average about 1500 visits per month on this blog and have a large readership from other countries, such as Russia and the Philippines, where the Hardshells have been proselyting.

I am getting older and my health is not what it once was. I am hoping that these younger ministers who have expertise regarding the "Primitive Baptists" will come forward and help keep this web site going after the Lord has called me home.