Review of ‘Paul and Women Keeping Silent in Church’ by Dr Jeff Simmonds

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1998.

The booklet argues that Paul's commandment to the effect that men should not have their heads covered when engaging in public prayer, and that women should have their heads covered, is not only the word of God, but is the word of God for us (see p. 1–4). That is an excellent statement with which I fully concur.

The book goes on to argue, however, that, whereas the Corinthians obeyed the basic principle involved in this particular word of God in terms suitable to their culture, we are not obliged to express that basic principle in the same cultural terms as they did. Our men can have their heads covered when they pray in public and the women need not have their heads covered, because ours is a different culture. We can obey the principle in this word of God by adopting other practices that are more in alignment with our modern culture (though what these other practices are, the booklet does not explain in any detail).

To justify this interpretation, the booklet appeals to the law regarding oxen in the Book of Deuteronomy. That law says that if my ox gores your ox, I need to pay you restitution. Nowadays, however, we do not have oxen. Nonetheless, the basic principle behind that law is applicable to us. If, for instance, my car collides with your car and damages it, I must pay you restitution.

So far, so good! But now the booklet tries to argue from this that the situation is the same in the matter of head-coverings. We nowadays have a different culture, so Christian women need not cover their heads and Christian men may cover theirs, so long as we keep the basic principle expressed in 1 Corinthians 11.

But the analogy is false. Moses' law regarding the ox was concerned, as the booklet says, with restorative justice. Now, a lot of people still have oxen, even in Britain, and therefore are subject to this same law. Of course, if we do not have oxen, there will be no danger that our ox gores somebody else's ox. But when it comes to the matter of men and women in the church, the situation is no different today whatsoever. We still have men and women in the church! We cannot argue that we no longer have men and women, just as we no longer have oxen, and therefore we do not need to keep details laid down for men and women. If we still had oxen, we should have to keep the law exactly as the law of Moses laid it down; and since we still have men and women as the Corinthians did, the analogy must be that we must still keep what the law lays down that men and women should do.

The meaning of the term 'head' (p. 5)

The booklet admits that if the word kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 means 'head', then verse 3 would be saying that God has authority over Christ, Christ has authority over men, and men have authority over women. But apparently the booklet does not like that translation because it dislikes the idea that men should have authority over women. And so it suggests that the word kephalē should be translated as 'source'. Now, it is true that scholars like Professor Bruce have advocated this rendering. But, in the first place, this is certainly not the normal meaning of the term in classical Greek.

Secondly, the matter has been discussed at great length, notably in the journals of Trinity College, Deerfield, Illinois. It would have been good, therefore, if the booklet had pointed out how controversial and disputed the translation 'source' is. And thirdly, the word 'head' is used in similar contexts elsewhere in other Epistles: 'he put all things in subjection under his feet' (Eph 1:22 ASV)—this is certainly an expression of Christ's authority—and then the verse says 'and gave him to be head over all things to the church'. That is, likewise, an expression of his authority. It follows that up with a metaphor: 'the church ... is his body': the head is the governing authority over the body.

The only way, therefore, of translating kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is the way followed by all translators of the New Testament and of classical scholars until the pressures in the modern feminist movement motivated translators to seek some other meaning for it.

The relation of headship to authority

The booklet does very well to point out that Christ's authority over the church expresses itself in his servanthood: he that is the head of the church is also the Saviour of the church, he came not to be served but to serve. And it is perfectly true and necessarily repeated often that all who hold authority in the church must use that authority in the same way as Christ used his.

That said, when Ephesians 5:23–24 proclaims that the husband is head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church, it goes on to say, 'But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be subject to their husbands'. When, therefore, Christ is said to be head of the church and the church is subject to him, this cannot be interpreted as meaning that Christ and the church are mutually submissive one to the other. Christ is not submissive to the church; Christ is not subject to the church. He serves the church—yes, of course he does. He is the Saviour of the church—yes, of course he is. But it would be altogether erroneous to suppose that he is submissive to the church, or subject to the church. He is the Lord and head of the church. And this being so, Ephesians 5:24 draws the analogy, as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be subject to their husbands.

As far as I can tell, the booklet seems to wish to undermine this straightforward meaning of the text, and to argue that all the text means is that men and women should be mutually submissive one to the other. Of course, men have abused their authority, and that is shameful. But abuses of this commandment are no justification for denying it.

The removal of the curse inflicted upon Eve

On page 28, the booklet argues that, through the redemption that Christ has effected, the curse upon Eve has been undone.

But he seems to have overlooked the fact that, when 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 says that 'the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man', Paul is not talking about the curse inflicted upon Eve after the fall. He is talking of the way God made man and woman and the order of their making before the fall. He is referring in fact to Genesis 2:18–25. At creation, man was not born of a woman; he was made by God's direct act of creation. Woman, on the other hand, was not made independently, but made out of the man. Secondly, the man was made first, and the woman was made for the man. 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help suitable for him'. That is why the woman was made. She was made for the man. And Paul adds, 'the man was not made for the woman'. It was not the case that the man was taken out of the woman.

This order, therefore, was not brought about by the fall. It was God's precedent, original, creatorial, deliberate order of things. The fact that our Lord has redeemed us from the curse does not cancel this original ordination of God, any more than the fact that we are redeemed from the curse by the blood of Christ cancels God's laws upon marriage, as were laid down in the beginning before the law. We notice, for instance, how Christ in Matthew 19 holds his disciples to the law on marriage that God laid down in the beginning.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 cites this institution of creation as the reason why a man should not cover his head in prayer, and women should cover theirs. The reason is based on the protocol of creation. It has nothing to do with Greek culture whatsoever. No pagan Greek would have known what you were talking about. And even if you had pointed him to the creation story in Genesis 2, he would not necessarily have accepted it. To claim that this creation ordinance does not apply to us today because it does not appeal to our culture any more than it appealed to ancient Greek culture, seems to me to be a serious misinterpretation of God's word.

The meaning of Galatians 3:26–28

The book (pp. 28–29) claims that:

'The pivotal truth expressed in this passage is that in Christ there is neither male nor female. In Christ the divisions which separate men and women are broken down. ... Since there is neither male nor female in Christ, there should be no area of Christian life which is an exclusively male domain, any more than there should be areas which are for Jews only, or whites only. God's grace, and empowerment for Christian service, comes to all people regardless of race or gender— to Jews and Gentiles, to slaves and to the free, to men and to women. As such, women should be allowed to teach and preach, to claim equality with men in all areas of Christian life, and to serve in church leadership.'

This is an argument to be heard very frequently nowadays. It involves a complete non sequitur. In the context of Galatians 3, Paul is laying down the terms upon which we become heirs of the great inheritance promised to Abraham and to his seed. He is arguing that the terms for becoming heirs according to the promise are the same as the terms by which we are justified by faith. These terms are, as all agree, the same for men and women, for Jews and Gentiles, for slaves and free.

But the fact that in this sense men and women are equal before God does not undo the realities of God's creation. The fact that men and women are one in Christ does not imply that, from now on, men can bear children and women can father them. To argue that Christ's redemption has delivered us from the curse, and therefore there should be no distinction between men and women, is, as we have already seen above, not true. Children are saved on the same conditions as adults. That does not mean that Christian children are free now not to obey their parents, or that children are equipped to be elders in the church. The modern arguments, therefore, that try to base themselves on Galatians 3 are fallacious.

The interrelation between man and woman

The booklet rightly quotes 1 Corinthians 11:11–12: 'Neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God'.

It would have been helpful if the book had pointed out the difference between these two verses, and what is said in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 were quoting the pattern and the ranks, giving responsibility to men and women by God's ordination at creation, and they insist that this creatorial order is relevant for us today, even in the church. 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 are talking of something different. As in the later sections of all his Epistles, Paul is here laying down what is appropriate conduct for men and women in their family situation, in the Lord. See, for instance, Ephesians 5:22; 6:1; Colossians 3:18, 20, 22–24, among others. In this connection it is appropriate to notice that, in the processes of life, men are born of women and all women are fathered by men.

There is, of course, this mutual interdependence. No one would seek to deny it. But while these verses supplement what 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 say, they do not contradict those verses. Order in the church should reflect the order laid down by God at creation. Attitudes one to another in the family should reflect the interdependence of men and women.

On androgyny in the church

On pages 13–14 and again on page 30, the booklet suggests that the believers in the church at Corinth were indulging in androgyny¹. The whole concept seems to me to be completely without foundation, and the product simply of a very vivid imagination. Where is his evidence that normal Greeks in the city of Corinth were guilty of androgyny? And where else in all the Epistles is there any hint of such a thing? It seems to me that the booklet seriously weakens its case if, in order to support it, it has to engage in such unsubstantiated imagination.

The meaning of the Greek term authenteō²

In modern times, and particularly among scholars who wish to support the idea that women have authority to teach in the church equally as men, all kinds of curious meanings have been suggested for the Greek word authenteō. The word is used in 1 Timothy 2:12. Among the baser meanings that have been suggested is that Paul means it is not permitted for a woman to have sexual authority over a man so as to seduce him or lead him into heresy. The booklet would have done better not to follow these baser suggestions, but to have consulted the usage of the word in the papyri as given, for instance, in The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan³.

The word has well known meanings in Greek. Its related adjective is the word from which we derive our English 'authentic'. It is a weak point in the booklet's argument if it has to be supported by claiming the attribution of unlikely English, not to say baser, connotations for the word authenteō. (Moulton and Milligan point out that the word never meant 'to murder', or 'to commit suicide'. That meaning arose from a textual corruption in some manuscripts.)

The meaning of the phrase 'The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets' (1 Cor 14:32)

The verse means that a prophet is in control of the inspiration that moves him. He cannot plead that he is unable to resist the spirit that moves him, and therefore must carry on speaking, even when he should be quiet. And similarly, it reminds the prophets that what they say is subject to criticism by the other prophets.

To argue on this analogy that, when Scripture says that women should be submissive to their husbands it does not mean that women should be submissive to men, but rather that women should be in control of themselves and to exercise self-control, comes dangerously near to denying the straightforward meaning of the verses we have already commented upon above (Eph 5:22–24).

I am not implying by this argument that there is no need to think through passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and re-examine our traditions, whatever they are, afresh in the light of Scripture. Each generation must do that with all God's word. Traditions may be good, and traditions may be bad. We must test all things, and hold fast that which is good. I do not want to stop people thinking. But this little booklet would have been better if it had attempted openly and carefully to expound in their context the various verses that it appeals to, and had been somewhat more careful than it has been in making sure that the views it recommends are, in fact, based on a careful exegesis of God's word. As it is, it seems rather to have mustered a number of verses from here and there and, without tracing the logical thought flow of the passages in which they are imbedded, has used them arbitrarily to support the view that it so strenuously, and with rather undisciplined imagination, propounds.

The meaning of the word laleō in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The booklet suggests paraphrasing these verses:

'Women are not permitted to shout in church! Let them not be disruptive. If they want to talk to their husbands, they shouldn't yell at them in the middle of a public meeting, but should speak to them at home'.

This is a gratuitous insult to the women of the New Testament. The booklet's author has no evidence that women did this kind of thing in the church at Corinth, any more than they do it today. He is simply relying on his own imagination to construct a situation that would justify him in avoiding the straightforward meaning of the term. The Greek word laleō does not mean 'to shout', or 'to yell'. The Greek had words that could express these ideas. It does not use them. Laleō is the word that Paul has used consistently through this chapter to denote his own speaking in church and the speaking of the prophets and those gifted with tongues. It is surely a sign of the weakness of this booklet's thesis that it has to depart from the ordinary, straightforward meaning of the Greek word so far in order to support its view.

Concluding remarks

Finally, let me point to the caricature that is presented by the book's cover. The caricature represents women who believe that the Lord would have them cover their heads in prayer as wearing ridiculous looking hats, and invites the reader, therefore, to laugh at them as being not only old-fashioned but absurd. I understand that it is meant to be humorous, and humour can be a healthy thing. But the caricature that the book cover presents is very unkind to those who hold a different view from what the book advocates.

And what is more, the argument it implies is false. True Christian love would never humiliate and make fun of other believers whose practices are motivated by a genuine conscience towards Christ. It is in connection with things like this that 1 Corinthians 8:8–13 warns us not to override a fellow-believer's conscience. Making fun of sincere believers who do not follow the modern feminist movement is surely not a Christ-like thing to do.

And, secondly, the caricature is false in its implied argument. It is true that, in the course of this century in Great Britain and elsewhere, the injunction that women should cover their heads in prayer has unfortunately given rise to great fashion parades in which women have decorated themselves with the latest fashions in hats, and thus in calling attention to themselves have defeated the very purpose for which the Lord asks them to wear veils.

But we are considering the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11, and there, of course, the women were asked to wear veils (not hats). The veils such as the Greek and Roman women wore were far from looking ridiculous and absurd. They had, in fact, a certain elegance about them. It is a false argument, therefore, to equate veils with absurd-looking hats, and by that means to suggest that all attempts in these modern days to obey the ordinances of 1 Corinthians 11 do nothing but make women look ridiculous.

¹ Androgyny is the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics into an ambiguous form.

² The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (1995-2015) gives the meaning as "to have full authority".

³ Moulton and Milligan cite evidence of the word's provenance in the popular vocabulary in papyri at the time, and say 'The use in 1 Tim 2:12 comes quite naturally out of the word "master, autocrat"'.