Under a CENI approach, the Bible expresses God’s will that women should actively serve (what some call lead) in worship assemblies that include men and women—both men and women should read scripture, speak, teach, preach, lead prayer, lead singing, and otherwise actively serve in mixed worship assemblies, per CENI.
This will surprise many within the Churches of Christ, primarily because the vast majority of the Churches of Christ prohibit women from so serving and CENI is often associated with fundamentalism today.
This article introduces the basics of CENI (direct Command, binding or approved Example, and Necessary Inference)—an approach to determining God’s will via the Bible—and sets out the main scripture cited for prohibiting women from actively serving in a mixed worship assembly.
It then quotes 13 scripture passages that authorize women to actively serve in a mixed worship assembly under a CENI approach, considers their import, and concludes by discussing some implications.
CENI is a short-hand label signaling a certain methodology for determining God’s will via the Bible that is sometimes used within the Churches of Christ, particularly by fundamentalists. CENI generally signals something more than simply analyzing scripture for commands, examples, and inferences, instead also signaling a distinct use of such analysis and of particular assumptions and standards to yield strict rules for life and church.
In general, such a CENI approach includes the view that unless an action is authorized in the Bible, it is a sin to engage in the action, and that no action is authorized unless the Bible (i) directly commands the action, (ii) sets out a binding (or approved) example of the action, or (iii) discusses matters such that it is a necessary inference that the action is commanded or approved.
In the view of some who apply CENI, it is not enough that the Bible sets out an example of the action in positive terms. Instead, for them, such example is binding or approved under CENI only if Jesus or an apostle (Peter, Paul, etc.) indicates it is binding or approved.
A “necessary” inference is a difficult standard to meet under CENI—that the inference is reasonable or likely is not enough to make it necessary. Instead, it is necessary only if “the conclusion drawn from the facts is irresistible” or “the implication in the premises is so strong that the conclusion is sure.” ()
Essentially, under such a CENI approach, an action is a sin unless the Bible very clearly authorizes it.
CENI has been used to designate as unauthorized and sinful things like youth ministers, fellowship halls with a kitchen, children’s church, using multiple cups during communion, missionary societies, denominational names (like Baptist), clapping in church, and pianos in the worship assembly.
Some assert that CENI is the only way to know God’s will, arguing it is the only method of Biblical interpretation ordained by God, Jesus and Paul instructed us to use it, and there is no other method that removes “personal interpretation” from Biblical interpretation. While we may not like what God’s will is shown to be through CENI, we are bound to follow God’s will instead of man-made doctrine, they declare.
Others roundly criticize the CENI hermeneutic and assert that it results in a legalistic, fear-based life and in an attempt to govern other people that God does not intend. It is not the analyzing of scripture for commands, examples, and inferences that is criticized, nor is it the following of some commands, examples, and inferences that is criticized (following the example of Jesus is not criticized, for instance). Instead, it is the distinct use of such analysis in combination with certain regulative assumptions and standards (such as that any action not very specifically authorized in the Bible is a sin) to proclaim and insist on various rules for everyone that is criticized.
This distinct use is criticized as reading all literary forms in the Bible like a rule book, ignoring grace and love, ignoring that we are made in God’s image, turning first-century culture into God’s divine will, emphasizing the often-informal words of men in letters over the example of Christ, devaluing Christ’s sacrifice, and (ironically) creating man-made doctrine.
CENI’s Use Today
CENI was a predominant approach within the Churches of Christ for decades. The intensity has faded, but it is still applied strictly in many quarters. Today, a tremendous number of people—probably including you—use all or some of CENI in their thinking without knowing it, as CENI’s elements are frequently repeated by their Sunday School teachers and fellow church members, mostly because that is what their teachers and fellow members heard from their Sunday School teachers and other church members, and a passing on and reinforcement of tradition occurs.
CENI, its echoes, or some of its elements can today be found in many discussions within the Churches of Christ regarding topics like what the scripture “authorizes,” emulating “the New Testament church,” “the Biblical definition” of a term, and following “the pattern given” in the Bible.
CENI is certainly a very conservative approach. What does its application say about women serving in the worship assembly?
Plain Meaning: Women Prohibited From Speaking in the Assembly
Women actively serve in worship assemblies in which men are present in some Churches of Christ and in most colleges affiliated with the Churches of Christ, but the vast majority of Churches of Christ prohibit women from actively serving in their worship assembly—women are not allowed to read scripture, lead prayer, serve at the communion table, lead singing, or preach.
This exclusion is viewed as God’s will as expressed in two passages, a typical English translation of which are:
- “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) (NIV)
- “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)
The rule that women must not read scripture, lead prayer, preach, etc., in a mixed worship assembly is plainly and clearly set out in these passages and ought to be obeyed regardless of how we feel about it, as it is God’s will and we are called to demonstrate our faith and trust in God and in the Word of God by following this rule, according to many within the Churches of Christ.
CENI tells a different story …
It will surprise many to learn that under a CENI approach, the Bible expresses God’s will that women should actively serve (what some call lead) in mixed worship assemblies—that they should read scripture, lead prayer, preach, etc., in the Sunday morning assembly.
That is, many within the Churches of Christ will find it surprising that a faithful application of CENI—an approach associated with fundamentalist thinking—yields the rule that women should not be restricted from speaking, teaching, and otherwise fully serving in mixed worship assemblies.
This is contrary to expectations and different from the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 and is explained below.
13 Passages with CENI
Below are 13 scripture passages, each introduced through the lens of a CENI approach, that constitute direct commands, binding (or approved) examples, and necessary inferences for women to actively serve in a mixed worship assembly (to speak, preach, teach, lead prayer, read scripture, lead singing, etc.).
Approved examples of, or commands for, women—part of “the whole church,” “everyone,” “brothers and sisters,” and “all”—speaking, prophesying, singing a hymn, teaching, reading scripture, preaching, and having authority in a mixed worship assembly:
(1) The Apostle Paul said, when “the whole church comes together … if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin …. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming ‘God is really among you!’” (1 Cor 14:23-25; see also 1 Cor 11:5, 14:6, 20) (all scripture from NIV unless otherwise specified)
(2) Paul said, when “brothers and sisters … come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. …” (1 Cor 14:26) (NIV)
(3) Paul said, in the assembly, women and men, “you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.” (1 Cor 14:31; see also 14:23, 26, 39-40; 11:5; 1:1-2) (NIV)
Women commanded to speak, teach, speak scripture, and sing to men:
(4) Paul said, to women and men, “… be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord ….” (Eph 5:18-20)
(5) Paul said, to women and men, “… teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God ….” (Col 3:16)
Women (and men) commanded to teach everyone, everywhere (not just their own sex and not just outside a worship assembly) with a necessary inference of reading scripture and speaking about Christ:
(6) Jesus said “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ….” (Matt 28:19 (KJV))
Women commanded to serve all with speaking and other gifts with a command or necessary inference of no blanket exclusion as to time, place, or audience as they are commanded to do so “as one who speaks the very words of God”:
(7) The Apostle Peter said, to women and men, “Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others,”—not just other women—“as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. ….” (1 Peter 4:10-11) (NIV)
Approved example of a woman praying and prophesying before a mixed group:
(8) Joseph and Mary “marveled at what was said about [Jesus]. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: ‘This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel ….’ There was also a prophet, Anna …. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” (Luke 2:25-38; see also 1 Cor 11:5, 16)
Women commanded, as part of “every one,” to speak, including prophesying and praying, in a mixed assembly:
(9) The Apostle Paul said, to women and men, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy … so that the church may be edified.” (1 Cor 14:5; see also 1 Cor 1:1-2; 11:5; 14:23, 26, 39-40) Speaking in tongues included prayer. (e.g., 1 Cor 14:14 (“For if I pray in a tongue ….”))
Women commanded to pray out loud in a mixed assembly with an approved example and necessary inference from Paul wanting all to pray with “understanding” (out loud, regular way, not in tongues):
(10) The Apostle Paul, after telling women and men, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy,” describes “build[ing] up the church,” including telling them “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.” (1 Cor 14:5, 12-17; see also 1:1-2; 14:6, 23, 26)
Approved example of a woman having authority over men and teaching assembled men about scripture and God’s message:
(11) “When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest [and others of his men]: ‘Go and inquire of the Lord … about what is written in this book that has been found. ….’ [They] went to speak to the prophet Huldah, …. She said to them, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me … [teaching of prophecy given].” (2 Kings 22:11-20)
Approved example of women speaking, praying, and prophesying in the churches:
(12) The Apostle Paul said, “I praise you …. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head …. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? … For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor 11:2, 4-5, 13-16) “In the following … I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. … I hear that when you come together as a church, … [discussing challenges then with their practice of the Lord’s Supper in the assembly]. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. ” (1 Cor 11:17-34)
Command and approved example for women to preach to, speak to, and teach assembled men about Christ and having authority over them (e.g., telling them what Christ wants them to do):
(13) The first people to which Jesus revealed the good news of his resurrection were women, Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.” (John 20:16-17; Matt 28:9) He revealed his resurrection to them, spoke Mary’s name, said “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father,” and told them “Do not be afraid.” (John 20:16-17; Matthew 28:10). Jesus then said to them: “’Go … to my brothers and tell them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”‘ (John 20:17) “Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee ….” (Matt 28:10) Mary Magdalene went to the assembled disciples and spoke to and taught them: ‘I have seen the Lord!’ … she told them that he had said these things to her.” (John 20:17-18; see also Luke 24:9, 33; John 20:10, 19))
CENI Reveals Women Should Actively Serve in the Worship Assembly …
Thus, the Bible tells women via CENI to, in the assembly, …
- prophesy (passages 1-3, 8, 9, 11, and 12 above)
- have “a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (2)
- speak “with psalms, hymns, and songs” (4, 5)
- lead singing (2, 4, 5, 7)
- “go … and teach all” the Gospel (6)
- speak to serve men and women “as one who speaks the very words of God” (7; 1-3, 8, 9, 11, and 12)
- preach (1-3, 6-9, 11-13)
- lead prayer (8-10, 12)
- have authority (7, 11, 13, all)
- speak in tongues (2, 9)
- teach (1-3, 8, 11, 13; 9, 12), and
- read scripture (2, 4-5, 7, 11; 1, 3, 8, 9, 12) …
… to and for men and women.
There are passages beyond these 13 with CENIs in a similar vein. Indeed, the first evangelist was a woman, the “woman at the well,” the first person Jesus, our saviour, chose to tell that he was the Messiah. She went to her village (men and women) and taught them about Jesus and in response many “believed in him because of the woman’s testimony.” (John 4:1-42)
Some will say that the setting of passage numbers (6)-(8) and (11)-(13) is not in “the” assembly in the sense of “the church.” Some argue passage (12) is not in a mixed assembly but evidence strongly points to it being in the full church (see commentary on the various passages in Sources & Notes below). There is little disputing that passages (8), (11), and (13) depict mixed groups who are praising or striving to serve God, so the distinction seems strained. The remaining two ((6) and (7), the Great Commission and serving “as one who speaks the very words of God”) on their face apply to all reasonable—and maybe unreasonable—times and places. A few will argue passages (4) and (5) do not refer to in the assembly, but even very conservative Church of Christ scholars say they do (see Sources & Notes below).
“Plainly” Diverted …
Oddly, many of the same people who ostensibly apply some or all of CENI—which emphasizes an analytical view of interpretation—take an extremely non-analytical view of the two passages used to exclude women from speaking in the assembly, 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15.
Instead, they often simply quote parts of certain English translations of the two and declare them to “plainly” or “clearly” state God’s will and cite what they’ve been taught even though:
(a) the briefest study of those verses reveals they do not have their “plain” meaning (for instance, women, while in the churches, both sing and ask to be prayed for and baptized even though the verses say “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, …. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.”)—instead, those verses have a “technical,” “special,” or “highly contextual” meaning, one requiring interpretative study (one such study is here);
(b) even very conservative scholars—e.g., Wayne Jackson, Everett Ferguson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, D.A. Carson, …—do not advocate that they have their “plain” meaning (see endnote  in Sources & Notes); and
(c) other scripture, including the 13 passages above, and Church-of-Christ practice directly contradict a “plain meaning” interpretation of those two passages, suggesting the “plain meaning” interpretation is incorrect (see an introduction here).
The Plain-Meaning Approach is Not a CENI approach
Such people are not truly applying the CENI approach (or any other interpretive approach) because, among other things, they are
(a) not determining what commands, examples, and inferences are actually contained in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 in the first place, choosing instead to hew to “plain meaning,” knowing that the verses do not have their plain meaning (one conservative Church of Christ scholar explains that use of CENI is valid “after we have used other principles of hermeneutics to understand its meaning” and that the first step is “determining what the passage meant to those who first received it”);
(b) favoring the Church of Christ tradition of excluding women over and above scripture like the 13 discussed above—when a CENI approach is supposed to reject man-made doctrine for the Bible’s instructions; and
(c) rejecting using scriptural analysis to determine what 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 mean when CENI requires an analytical approach (e.g., to determine inferences, to determine if an example is authorized, to determine if an inference is “necessary,” etc.).
Scriptural analysis reveals it is highly likely the verses in these passages said to exclude women mean:
- 1 Cor 14:34-35: Married women are asked not to speak disruptive questions (maybe questions about prophecy and judging it); instead they are supposed to ask those to their husbands at home. To do otherwise causes a disgrace. (analysis here and here)
- 1 Tim 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach uninformed, false doctrine that disturbs the peace and that involves an exercise of seized power in a domineering way that creates conflict with a man; instead, any teaching, etc., must be peaceful. (analysis here)
Multiple Church of Christ congregations, most Church of Christ colleges, many Church of Christ Biblical scholars, and other churches, through careful study of the Bible, have concluded that 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 have the above meanings or similar meanings (and not the plain meaning of many common English translations). They have conclued that such meanings do not call for the exclusion of women from actively serving in the worship assembly.
Thus a CENI approach shows it is God’s will that women actively serve—what some call lead—in a mixed worship assembly by leading prayer, reading scripture, preaching, leading singing, etc. Since a CENI approach is one of the—if not the—strictest hermeunetic approaches to scripture, it stands to reason that if a CENI approach shows women ought to actively serve in the worship assembly, then women ought to actively serve in the worship assembly.
Simply citing plain meaning and relying on tradition regarding scripture might be easy but it does not constitute a yearning for and truly seeking God’s will in scripture.
And it does not constitute loving “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” nor does asserting restrictions using scripture in such a manner constitute loving “your neighbor as yourself.” Commands, no doubt! (The Greatest Commandment, Matthew 22:37-40.)
Moreover, prohibiting a woman from fully serving in the assembly blocks her from loving—worshiping—the Lord her God with all her heart and with all her soul and with all her mind, as Christ asked her to do. And it blocks her from loving her neighbor as herself, from serving her neighbor in the assembly, as Christ asked her to do. Commands, no doubt!
The main question is that now that you know the Bible shows it is God’s will that women actively serve in the worship assembly by leading prayer, reading scripture, preaching, leading singing, etc., what are you going to do?
Additional commentary on each of the 13 passages can be found in the (lengthy!) Sources & Notes section.
Sources & Notes
I quote the most relevant part of the scripture associated with each of the 13 CENIs to be efficient in light of space and attempt to capture its meaning in context in the headers and with what I quote. Additional context is discussed with reference to each of the 13 below in the Commentary section.
I primarily think of speaking in the assembly as “serving” rather than “having authority” or “leading.” For example, I think of “leading prayer” as serving the congregation. By “actively serving” or the like, I am referring to what many refer to as a “leadership” role—preaching, leading singing, leading prayer, serving at the communion table, making announcements, etc. By “actively serving,” I am not referring to singing with the congregation, participating in communion when passed, giving money when the plate is passed, or similar things, which might be thought of as “passively serving” (even though, of course, when one sings or passes the plate, etc., one is not really being wholly passive.). “Leading worship” and “actively serving” and the like are all imperfect and unsatisfactory descriptors, but some short-hand is necessary for efficiency.
On serving being appropriate, rather than having authority or even teacher, and only God having authority, etc., see Matthew 23:1-12:
“23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
There are variations on the CENI approach, and I have tried to capture, in summary, the type reflected in my interface with those who employ it now and in my readings and observations.
For sources for CENI Introduction, CENI Use, and CENI’s Use Today and on CENI generally: see, e.g.,
Discussion of some underlying principles used in the CENI approach:
John Mark Hicks, Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics IV — Regulative Principle and Churches of Christ, JohnMarkHicks.com (May 30, 2008).
Generally positive regarding CENI:
Stafford North, “Command, Example, and Necessary Inference,” OC.edu (Oklahoma Christian) (Undated), accessed June 2, 2018.
Wayne Jackson, “What is a ‘Necessary Inference’?” ChristianCourier.com, accessed June 2, 2018.
Wayne Jackson, “The Classification of Bible Commands,” The Christian Courier (undated).
Phil Sanders, “Hermeneutics: How to Study the Bible” (2015) (detailed class syllabus with readings on CENI).
Mike Willis, “Four Ways to Establish Bible Authority,” Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 18 page 2 (September 21, 2000).
“Authority, Pt. 2: Establishing Authority,” The Church of Christ in BlackFoot (October 2015).
“How to Interpret the Bible (Parts 1-23),” Holly Street Church of Christ (undated).
“Sermon: The Case for CENI” (July 6, 2014), Sunset Church of Christ (Hillsboro, OR), accessed June 2, 2018 (CENI “hermeneutic is the only one applicable to the law of God”); see also video and slides here.
“Biblical Authority,” The Gospel Defender (February 2, 2007), accessed June 2, 2018.
David R. Pharr, “Binding Examples,” The Carolina Messenger, accessed June 26, 2018 (updated).
Edwin Crozier, “Fully Equipped,” Franklin Church of Christ (April 1, 2007).
“How Can We Know What is Binding?” Lone Grove Church of Christ (undated).
Alexandra Taylor, “CENI: The Method of Interpreting the Word of God,” SlidePlayer.com (2015).
Philip Sanders, “Let All the Earth Keep Silence: A Study on the Silence of Scriptures,” Second Ed. (2005).
Also see: Alan Rouse, “Restoration Hermeneutics Series,” ChristianUnityBlog.Net (2006) (discussing standards for CENI and criticizing some).
Others cite these, but I have not read them: Thomas B. Warren, When is an “example” binding? (1975); Roy C. Deaver, Ascertaining Bible Authority.
Early Restoration Movement scholars associated with CENI besides ones mentioned above include Alexander Campbell, Moses Lard, JW McGarvey, and James Harding.
Generally negative regarding CENI:
Jay F. Guin, “CENI: Introduction,” OneinJesus.info (May 2, 2009), accessed June 2, 2018.
Tim Archer, “Direct commands, approved examples and necessary inferences,” The Kitchen of Half Baked Thoughts (March 13, 2012), accessed June 2, 2018; also see Tim Archer, “Holy Kisses and Ignored Commands,” The Kitchen of Half Baked Thoughts (January 2014) (concluding holy-kiss verses are not commands).
“Are Approved Examples Binding (Part 1),” CreedRehersal.com, accessed June 27, 2018 (updated) (there are two parts) .
(It is much easier to find articles criticizing CENI than it is to fine ones extolling its benefits. I tried to include mostly the ones touting CENI here, as the others are easy to find.)
See also Gary D. Collier, “Bringing the Word to Life: An Assessment of the Hermeneutical Impasse in Churches of Christ,” GaryDCollier.com (June 1990) (includes several interesting quotes and cites regarding “necessary inference” from the Churches of Christ’s history)
I identified a scholarly thesis on CENI, but could not locate a copy before publication: Michael Wilson Casey, The Development of Necessary Inference in the Hermeneutics of the Disciples of Christ / Churches of Christ (01/01/1986) (Abstract: “… The Disciples made naive assumptions about how scripture was to be interpreted; believing that the Bible could be approached inductively and by simply quoting the appropriate verses of scripture and avoiding syllogistic or “human” reasoning all people could interpret the Bible alike….”). Also see Michael W. Casey, The Battle Over Hermeneutics in the Stone-Campbell Movement, 1800-1870, Studies in American Religion 67, Lewiston, Ν.Y. : Edwin Mellen (1998) (have not read this either).
“Some assert that CENI is the only …” See, e.g., “The Case for CENI,” supra (“Jesus made it clear to keep his commandments (John 14:15), follow His examples (John 13:15), and draw logical conclusions of obedience from His doctrines (Matthew 25:26-27). Paul made it clear that we were to observe his commands in Christ (2 Thessalonians 3:14), his examples in Christ (2 Thessalonians 3:9), and to draw logical conclusions of obedience (1 Corinthians 6:7; II Timothy 2:15).”)
More resources on CENI and related information: J.D. Thomas, We Be Brethren (generally recognized as one of the best, if not the best, argument for CENI and related doctrines); Cecil Willis et al., The Arlington Meeting (collection of essays regarding non-institutional and institutional debates and discussions) Cogdill-Woods Debate (1957) (cited as the best debate related to the topic); Ketcherside, According to the Pattern (one of the better responses to the traditional hermeneunetic); Milo Hadwin, The Role of New Testament Examples (1974) (also one of the better responses); Michael Casey, Battle Over Hermenetuics (historical view on the issues); Allen, Cruciform Church (same); Boring, Disciples and the Bible (same); Meadors (ed), Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (view from various evangelical perspectives); Vanhoozer, Faith Speaking Understanding (discussing theological hermeneutics); Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine (same); Adam (ed), Reading Scripture With the Church (collection of essays with varied theological hermeneutics); Cogdill, Walking by Faith (suggestions by Dr. John Mark Hicks).
Endnote : “Instead, an inference is necessary only if “the conclusion drawn from the facts is irresistible” or “the implication in the premises is so strong that the conclusion is sure.'”: Wayne Jackson, “What is a ‘Necessary Inference’?” ChristianCourier.com, Access Date: June 2, 2018 (“Necessary” inference is to be differentiated from “reasonable” inference. “’Reasonable’ inferences suggest a likely possibility. … On the other hand, if an ‘inference’ is characterized as ‘necessary,’ this means that the conclusion drawn from the facts is irresistible.“); Stafford North, “Command, Example, and Necessary Inference,” OC.edu (Oklahoma Christian) (Undated), Last Accessed June 2, 2018 (“A “necessary” inference is one where the implication in the premises is so strong that the conclusion is considered sure. For example, “Only American-born persons may become president of the United States.” Tony Blair is not American-born. Therefore, Tony Blair may not become president of the United States. Since the premises are certain, this conclusion is also certain. Again, someone might propose that “Only those who have held previous political office can be elected president.” John has not held previous political office. Therefore, John cannot become president. While there is strong evidence to suggest that a previous political office is certainly the common way of rising to the presidency, this statement does not have the same certainty as the first.”). “Necessary inference” is probably the most controversial of the three categories of CENI.
Endnote , In the “CENI Reveals …” Section: Of course, there is a lot of overlap among the actions shown in the bullet points. I attempted to designate at least the most relevant scripture passages from among the 13. Some of the passages apply to other categories, too. Prophesying and prophecy is not just foretelling possible futures. Prophesying includes, for example, speaking to people for “their strengthening, encouraging and comfort[ing]” (1 Cor 14:2-4, 31), edifying them (14:5), instructing them (14:19), convicting them of sin (14:24), and/or revealing God’s will (14:26, 30). Thus, the prophesy referred to includes, in large measure, what we refer to as preaching today. “Teach” and “teaching” in this context is likewise a function preachers carry out. There is overlap among the categories of actions listed. Prophesying, for example, includes, at times, teaching, reading and analyzing scripture, foretelling the future, giving the word of God, and similar things. Preaching often involves such things.
p = all the numbered passages associated with prophesy (passages 1-3, 8, 9, 11, and 12 above)
Endnote : “even very conservative scholars … who have studied the matter do not advocate that they have their plain and ordinary’ meaning”: They discuss the “type” of speaking prohibited, the “kind” of teaching prohibited, limiting the direction’s application to a worship assembly, etc., for example. See, e.g., Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church, 2nd ed., Abilene, Texas: Desert Willow Publishing (2015), pages 21, 28-29, 118 (not all “speaking” is prohibited for women by 1 Cor 14:34-35, only certain “kinds of speaking” are prohibited; women can speak “Amen” along with the rest of the congregation, they can translate, they can speak by interpreting or translating for another, and they can speak their confession of faith at baptism); Ferguson, supra, page 46 (setting of 1 Timothy 2 as the assembly “is not so obvious” but limiting based on other scripture); Wayne Jackson, “1 Corinthians 14:34–‘Silence’ in the Church,” Christian Courier, Accessed May 15, 2018 (“The first two prohibitions demand silence only in the matters being discussed. They do not forbid these men to otherwise speak consistent with their divine obligations. … This does not demand that a woman be absolutely silent at church. Rather, in harmony with what the apostle taught elsewhere (1 Tim. 2:12), the woman is not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role. She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher, in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere, and she violates scripture. … Thus, mark “silence” in verse 34. Draw arrows back to verses 28, 30, and note: Silence not absolute, but qualified by context.); Wayne Jackson, “May a Woman Ever Teach a Man?,” Christian Courier, Accessed May 15, 2018 (“In 1 Timothy 2:12, the grammatical construction of Paul’s prohibition clearly indicates that the term “teach” (didasko) in this setting is the type associated with exercising “authority.” The woman is not to teach in a situation wherein she exerts “authority” as “the teacher.””); Wayne Jackson, “The Role of Woman,” ChristianCourier.com. Access date: June 4, 2018 (“Certainly women may teach … ; they may, in certain ways, teach men. … But a woman may not assume the formal position of teacher, with the man subordinated to the role of student, without violating a New Testament command.”); John Piper & Wayne Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway (2016), pages 38-39, 41 (“The reason we believe Paul does not mean for women to be totally silent in the church is that in 1 Corinthians 11:5 he permits women to pray and prophesy in church: “Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” But someone may ask, “Why do you choose to let 1 Corinthians 11:5 limit the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34 rather than the other way around?””; “This dynamic is significantly different from the public, authoritative teaching of Scripture to a congregation that Paul prohibits for women in 1 Timothy 2:12.”; “When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,” we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women.”; “It is arbitrary to think that Paul had every form of teaching in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and that men not learn from women in some sense.”); D.A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” Chapter 6 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. by Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books (1991), pages 133, 142 (“The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is by no means easy. The nub of the difficulty is that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul is quite prepared for women to pray and prophesy, albeit with certain restrictions; but here, a first reading of the text seems to make the silence he enjoins absolute. The solutions that have been advanced are, like devils in certain instances of demon possession, legion. I can do no more than list a few and mention one or two of my hesitations about them before turning to the interpretation I find most contextually and exegetically secure. … Paul’s point here, however, is that they may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies.”).
Endnote  — “conservative Church of Christ scholar …”: Stafford North, “Command, Example, and Necessary Inference,” OC.edu (Oklahoma Christian) (Undated), accessed June 2, 2018.
Endnote  — “Multiple Churches of Christ and others in which women actively serve (lead) in mixed worship services, through careful study of the Bible, have concluded that these verses having such meaning or a similar meaning (and not the plain meaning reflected in many common English translations).”: There is an (incomplete) list of some of the Churches of Christ in which women serve in the worship assembly here. Some of these churches have published their studies. See, for example, the study of the Oak Hills Church, the Glenwood Church, the Providence Road Church of Christ, the Sycamore View Church of Christ, the Springfield Church of Christ, the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ, and the Meadowbrook Church of Christ. Also note the article by John T. Willis, “The Inclusion of Women in Worship: The Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas”. Church of Christ university professors have published books addressing those verses, including Carroll D. Osburn, Women in the Church, Abilene: ACU Press (2001) (see pages 264-267 for summary of conclusions). There are links to some denominations’ analysis of this scripture in the Sources and Notes portion of Steve Gardner, “David Lipscomb, Church of Christ Foundational Leader: ‘All the Teaching of the Bible is Against Women Speaking in Public’ (It Gets Worse),” AuthenticTheology.com (April 12, 2018). See also Bill Grasham (Center for Christian Education), “The Role of Women in the American Restoration Movement,” ; Billie Silvey, ed., Trusting Women: The Way of Women in Churches of Christ, Orange, California: New Leaf Books (2002) (moving faith stories of women in the Churches of Christ; Katie Hays’ chapter, “Opening Doors: The Journal of a Minister,” is particularly striking); Thomas Robinson, “A Community Without Barriers: Women in the New Testament and the Church Today,” New York: Manhattan Church of Christ (2002); http://www.communitywithoutbarriers.com/ (resources, including sermons). Most of the colleges affiliated with the Churches of Christ have chapel worship-assemblies in which women fully serve (preach, read scripture, etc.). See Steve Gardner, “Most Church-of-Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: A List of Schools and Their Approach to Chapel,” AuthenticTheology.com (May 9, 2019). Also see Two Views on Women in Ministry (Revised Edition), ed. by Stanley N. Gundry (series editor) Grand Rapids: Zondervan (2005); How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals, ed. by Alan F. Johnson, Grand Rapids: Zondervan (2010). An in-depth look at both of those verses from a Church of Christ perspective, engaged through a dialog involving a young woman considering colleges, can be found in these three articles: Steve Gardner, “(Part 2) Most Church-of-Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: Scriptural? and a College Visit,” AuthenticTheology.com (May 16, 2018) (some reasons why it is wrong to assert that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:12 has its “plain meaning” or to simply quote either as “plain” or “clear” teaching that women are not to serve actively in the worship assembly); Steve Gardner, “(Part 3) Most Church-of-Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: Does It Contradict 1 Cor 14:34-35, “Women Should Remain Silent …?”, AuthenticTheology.com (May 22, 2018) (1 Cor 14:34-35 does not exclude women from actively serving in the worship assembly and ample scripture encourages women to speak and teach in the assembly); Steve Gardner, “Most Church-of-Christ Colleges No Longer Exclude Women From Leading in Worship Services: Violates 1 Timothy 2:12 “do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”? (Part 4, Conclusion),” AuthenticTheology.com (May 30, 2018) (1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not exclude women from actively serving in the worship assembly and ample scripture encourages it).
Commentary on the 13 Passages Quoted in the Main Text
In the labels / categories given in red in the main text, I speculate on how a person who applies CENI would categorize each passage (as direct command, binding (or approved) example, or necessary inference, etc.). Below, I do so as well and speculate a bit more on what they might say about the passage if they treated it like other CENI-analyzed scripture is treated. I also add or cite some commentary or notes related to some of the passages.
(1) Here is an example of women speaking in a mixed assembly that receives the Apostle Paul’s enthusiastic approval. Hard to deny this describes everyone, women and men, speaking in the assembly here, with a good result. “The whole church” and “everyone” includes, of course, women and men. Thus, Paul was telling women to speak in the church when men are present. Prophesying and prophecy is not just foretelling possible futures. Prophesying includes speaking to people for “their strengthening, encouraging and comfort[ing]” (1 Cor 14:2-4, 31), edifying them (14:5), instructing them (14:19), convicting them of sin (14:24), and/or revealing God’s will (14:26, 30). Thus, it includes preaching, teaching, reading scripture, and the like.
Preaching involves doing one or more of things like speaking about Christ, the Father, or the Holy Spirit, strengthening, encouraging, edifying, instructing, teaching, convicting people of sin, speaking about the good news, speaking about scripture, and revealing God’s will. Prophesying involves doing one or more of things like “strengthening, encouraging and comfort[ing]” (1 Cor 14:2-4, 31), edifying (14:5), instructing (14:19), convicting them of sin (14:24), and revealing God’s will (14:26, 30). Prophecy correlates to preaching. Speaking or teaching about such things correlates to preaching, too. Examples of specifically called out women addressing an assembly by prophesying, speaking, and teaching about such things include: example of Anna, a prophet, speaking about Christ to an assembly of men and women; example of women prophesying in the church(es) at Corinth; example of Huldah prophesying and speaking about scripture to an assembly of men; and example of Mary M speaking to and teaching an assembly of men about Christ’s resurrection, the good news, and what Christ would like for them to do. There are also commandments and necessary inferences, too, in relation to what we refer to as preaching today.
This passage is a binding or approved example and necessary inference at least. See, e.g., North, supra (pointing to 1 Cor 14 as containing commands and examples).
(2) In this verse, Paul commands each woman (and man) who comes to a mixed assembly to sing a hymn, teach, read scripture, tell a revelation given to them by God, speak in tongues, or explain an interpretation. The verse is a command. See, e.g., North, supra (pointing to 1 Cor 14 as containing commands and examples). Note “have a hymn” suggests an individual with a song for everyone, indicating what some refer to as “leading singing.” Paul knows women are prophets (e.g., 1 Cor 11:5, 16) and just told women to prophesy (see item (1)).
Note some form-equivalence translations say “brethren” or “brothers” come together. They are reporting the Greek form and not the meaning expressed in language understood today. (see article discussing form-equivalent and functional-equivalent translation differences (in small part of main text, but primarily in the extended section when click “**** Click here if you …” in that article.)) It is basic Bible that the Greek word used in 1 Cor 14:6, 20, 26 — adelphoi — is literally translated “brothers” in its form, but the Greek language used the word adelphoi / brothers to mean either “brothers” or “brothers and sisters.” In other words, adelphoi was used to mean either a group of people of the male sex or a group of people of both sexes. It seems odd to us in the 21st century, but it is the way the Greek language worked then, and the word adelphoi or “brothers” was used roughly like a lot of people use “guys” today, referring to either a group of males or a group of males and females (some use guys to refer to a group of females, too). As far as I know, the only people who claim 14:6,20,26 refers to only an all-male group of people are fundamentalists working to justify a tradition of excluding women. Even conservative / evangelical translations that translate to provide original meaning expressed in today’s language, like the NIV, NLT, CSB, NET, etc., translate it as “brothers and sisters” in 14:6,20,26, and the Middle-Ages-based translations use the word “brethren” to signal the dual nature of the word (KJV does this). Some of the translations that lean “word-for-word” or literal translation there will use the form “brothers,” expecting you to know it is required when using such translations that you have to know and analyze more about the Bible to figure out the meaning of the word or phrase.
(3) Paul knows women are prophets (1 Cor 11:5). Talking to “brothers and sisters” coming together in the assembly (14:26), Paul tells them “all” to prophesy. (1 Cor 14:31; see also 14:23, 26, 39-40; 11:5; 1:1-2) He commands and gives an approved example that women and men can prophesy, but it must be in turn. See note above regarding what prophesying entails. See generally, North, supra (pointing to 1 Cor 14 as containing commands and examples).
Some will argue that all of 1 Cor was written just to men. The Apostle Paul, the author of the letter embodied in 1 Cor, however, wrote 1 Cor to women and men, addressing it “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: ….” (1 Cor 1:2). He also addresses women directly throughout 1 Cor, including “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” (1 Cor 7:5), and “How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?” (1 Cor 7:16). See also, e.g., 1 Cor 7:8 (widows); 7:10 (wives); 7:13 (a woman married to an unbeliever); 7:34-36 (unmarried women); 7:39-40 (married women, widows); 11:5-6 (women praying and prophesying).
(4) and (5): In these two passages, women (and men) are commanded to speak and teach in the worship assembly. Conservative Church of Christ scholars tell us these verses are commands from God to women and men that apply to the worship assembly. See, e.g., Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church, 2nd ed., Abilene, Texas: Desert Willow Publishing (2015), pages 20-21 (“In the assembly women do things commanded of each Christian. These activities would include singing. … These instructions apply to everyone (men are not the only ones to avoid drunkenness) and ‘at all times,’ so including the times of assembly.”) (citing Eph 5:18-20); Wayne Jackson, “Ephesians 5:19 — Making Melody,” ChristianCourier.com, Access date: June 3, 2018 (“command”; “church worship”); Wayne Jackson, “The Authorized Elements of Church Music.” ChristianCourier.com. Access date: June 3, 2018 (Col 3:16 address “church music”; “Psalms” may refer to those compositions in the Hebrew Bible); North, supra (“In the same way, we are told to sing as an offering of music in our worship to God (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19; I Corinthians 14:15).”). Note they are commands to women to speak to and teach men in a mixed worship assembly, contradicting the “plain meaning” interpretation some ascribe to 1 Cor 14:34-35 (“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak …”) and 1 Tim 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach …”). These two passages address speaking, both hymns and psalms, thus constituting a command relative to both singing and scripture. Some say these refer only to singing psalms; it seems like a command, example, or necessary inference that if one is authorized to sing a psalm then one is authorized to speak it otherwise.
(6) Here, Jesus directly commands all Christians—women and men—to “go … and teach” everyone (all nations). The command does not express exceptions (e.g., “go, except stop when in the worship assembly” or ” teach everyone, except men when in public”). Note this is a command to women to teach men, contradicting the “plain meaning” interpretation some ascribe to 1 Tim 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach …”). This is a commandment. See, e.g., North, supra (commandment).
(7) In this passage, “each of you”—thus, women (and men)—are commanded to use any gift they have “to serve others.” Note the “others” women are commanded to serve are not just other women. “Others” are women and men. The gifts women are commanded to use to serve men in the verse include speaking. Women (and men) are commanded to speak in a particular manner: “as one who speaks the very words of God.” It is not difficult to necessarily infer that the “very words of God” should be spoken to men in the assembly. Church of Christ bulletins exhort this verse as a command of God. See, e.g., Gene Bench, “Principles from Paradise,” Curry Street Church of Christ Bulletin (April 12, 2015) (“We are commanded to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) ” ); (“We are commanded to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).”). Note singing is a form of speaking in Paul’s vernacular. See item (4) above, Eph 5:18-20. It seems like a necessary inference that if one speaks as if speaking the very words of God, then reading scripture is authorized. Thus this includes not just preaching and reading scripture, but also leading singing and other activities.
(8) Here is an approved example of a woman praying, prophesying, and teaching before a mixed audience. We know Anna and her audience were in the temple because “she never left.” We know she was a prophet and “praying” was one of the things she did to worship day and night. She came up to “them”–Joseph, Mary, and Simeon at least—“at that very moment,” indicating Simeon was still present and that it occurred during their assembling together for purposes of blessing and worshiping. Some argue Anna was only in the “women’s part” of the temple, but the text rejects that argument, saying she came up to the mixed group “at that very moment.” She prayed before the mixed audience (gave thanks) and then spoke about Jesus. She was a prophet, so presumably she prophesied and taught. Her speaking and teaching almost certainly had something to do with Jesus and “the redemption of Jerusalem.” Thus, this occurred in a mixed assembly of people.
Some would argue this was not “the assembly” even though it was in an assembly because it was before Jesus’s resurrection and before Pentecost. The CENI approach does not inherently declare all pre-Pentecost CENIs to be inapplicable, though, so arguing against their applicability to post-Pentecost assemblies seems contrary to CENI practice and result-driven. Thus, this example includes leading prayer, preaching, and the like.
As mentioned, some fundamentalists insist that only examples given by Apostles are sufficient under CENI, but it seems like an example of a prophet of God who worshiped night and day ought to satisfy them. As to the argument that this scene is not in “the assembly,” note also that the term “the church” or “the assembly” (ekklesia or ecclesia) had varying meanings, including Christ followers (a) everywhere (e.g., Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22); (b) in a particular city or geographic region (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Cor 16:19a; 2 Thes 1:1); and (c) gathered in a particular location, such as a house (e.g., Romans 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19b; 1 Cor 14:23). Also, note that assemblies of early Christians–“the assembly”—met in the temple. See, e.g., Acts 2:46 (“Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,”).
(9) This is a command for women to speak in the assembly. The Apostle Paul wants “every one of you” to speak—Paul was writing to women (and men), see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:1-5; 1 Cor 14:6 (“brothers and sisters”); 1 Cor 14:1-5 (“the church”). It is a mixed assembly, as it refers to “the church”—both women and men, of course, are part of “the church”—and he desires “the church” to be “edified,” thus all were intended to be present. When he says he wants “every one”—including women—to speak in tongues, and thus commands women to speak in tongues; since tongues includes prayer (1 Cor 14:14), Paul is commanding women to speak prayers, too. Thus, this includes leading prayer, as well as prophecy (see above note of prophecy including preaching, reading scripture, etc.). This verse is a command. See, e.g., Mark Dunagan, “Dunagan’s Commentary on 1 Peter,” CCBibleStudy.net (undated) (Command — “God expects Christians to use their natural abilities to help their brethren and spread the gospel. It is not enough to use such abilities to make a living. They must also be used for others. The same rule applies to spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14:5 ‘….so that the church may receive edifying’… 12 ‘seek to abound for the edification of the church.’).”); North, supra.
(10) Here, women are commanded to pray out loud (what some now refer to as lead prayer) in a mixed assembly. These verses also serve as a binding (approved) example and necessary inference from the Apostle Paul. He wants all to pray with “understanding” (out loud, regular way, not in tongues). He says he wants “every one of you”—which is women and men, of course (see above)—“to speak in tongues …” and he wants this speaking in tongues by women to occur when the “whole church comes together,” which of course is when women and men come together, a mixed assembly. Paul says “what shall I do?,” referring to himself but in effect a rhetorical device of putting the reader in his shoes (“what shall I do?” getting the reader / hearer to think “what shall I do?”) in addressing the problem of the mind being “unfruitful” when praying in tongues. Paul then says “I” will do something about that —“pray with my understanding.” That is, Paul commands and/or gives an approved example of praying out loud in a normal voice to solve that problem. It is certainly a command, example, and necessary inference of women praying out loud in a mixed assembly. It is clear it is out loud, as Paul turns to referring to when “you” are “praising God” and to “your thanksgiving” (prayer) and what “you are saying” and whether the hearer / inquirer will say “Amen” as they can understand what they hear “you” saying. Paul concludes in v. 23 with a clear “You are giving thanks” and, referring to tongues again, “no one else is edified.” Paul has been referring to a mixed assembly throughout (e.g., vv. 1-26 (“brothers and sisters,” “whole church,” “everyone,” etc.)) Paul knew, too, that women were praying in the assembly already. (1 Cor 11:5, 16-17)
(11) This serves as an approved example of a woman teaching men about the word of God and of a woman having authority over men. A group of men came to Huldah. They met in an assembly of people, men and at least one woman. The woman was the authority in the group, speaking for God. It is a necessary inference that the person who is speaking for God has authority. They came to her for prophecy and instruction about scripture (the Book of the Law). Thus, this is a binding (or approved) example of a woman speaking in an assembly of men (instructing, reading scripture, prophesying, etc.), teaching men, and having authority over men. As discussed above, some fundamentalists argue only examples from an apostle suffice under CENI, but an example provided by a person who speaks the word of God ought to satisfy them, of course. As to the argument that this scene is not in “the assembly,” note also the commentary on that point in (8) above.
Thus, 2 Kings 22:11-20, gives us an approved example of a woman having authority over men and teaching assembled men about scripture and God’s message. Authorization under CENI, to have authority over men and to teach assembled men about scripture and God’s message (classic what we refer to as preaching or the pulpit minister, etc.) would include authorization not only to preach and teach but to sing this message, pray (speaking to God), etc.
For another story of a woman having authority over men, see the story of Deborah at Judges 4-5.
(12) Paul gives an approved example of women praying and prophesying in the assembly. It seems near certain that it refers to praying out loud, as it refers to praying in conjunction with prophesying (of course out loud) and how it reflects on others, for example. Paul describes women praying and prophesying in the assembly.
In “A Review of Recent Arguments for Women Preachers,” ChristianCourier.com, Wayne Jackson says “there is no justification” for the assumption that the women prophesying and praying in 1 Cor 11:5 did so before men in the church. That’s not true, though.
We know that the text refers to in the assembly because the passage refers to what is happening in “the churches of God” (v. 16), the assemblies of God. The churches / assemblies of God are, of course, mixed assemblies. We know that v. 5 is within the context of an assembly also because the chapter discusses the Lord’s Supper (vv. 17-34), obviously something happening in the assembly. Also, the veil issue Paul discusses would not have raised an issue of a magnitude for addressing extensively as he did if it were in a setting with all women or in private.
Additionally, Paul indicates that he is referring to the assembly in v. 5 by treating vv. 2-34 as a single, unified discussion-block, setting off one part with “I praise you …” (v. 2) and the second part with “I have no praise for you …” (v. 17), and expressing throughout that the discussion-block refers to activity in “the churches” (v. 16), “your meetings,” (v.17), and “when you come together as a church” (v.18), as well as noting throughout that the discussion-block is concerned with one’s relationship to others (e.g., not dishonoring one another, Christ, and God (vv. 3-5, 7-12) and avoiding “divisions among you” (v. 18)).
Some will argue that v. 16 is part of the second part of the block, but the way Paul structured the text shows v. 16 is part of the first part. Paul uses the same sentence structure in both parts to signal the beginning and ending of each. Both parts begin with a note on praise (vv. 2, 17) and end with an “If anyone …” statement (vv. 16, 34).
Thus, v. 5 refers to women engaged in what some now call leading prayer, as well as prophecy (see note above regarding what prophecy entailed), in the assembly.
(13) Here, Jesus commands women to evangelize, teach, and direct men, the disciples (to “go … and tell”). Here we have Jesus telling women to “Go” and tell men of his resurrection and what Jesus said to do. This is what we today refer to as evangelism or being an evangelist. In the worship assembly, there is a role in which the person gos and tells men and women of Jesus’s resurrection and what Jesus said to do. That role is “preacher,” “pulpit minister,” “evangelist,” etc. Jesus commands the women to both teach them (‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ and, impliedly at least, that he has risen) and to give them orders (go to Galilee).
The disciples were in fear and it is nearly certain that they were assembled together when she told them. The text indicates this, as it says “Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her,” (John 20:18.), indicating they were together (“to the disciples”) and she said it once.
Thus, this is a command by Jesus for a woman to teach, evangelize, and command an assembly made up of men.
Some will argue “the church” did not begin until Pentecost, rather than at Jesus’s resurrection or before. However, as discussed previously, the CENI approach does not inherently declare all pre-Pentecost CENIs to be inapplicable, so arguing against their applicability to post-Pentecost assemblies seems contrary to CENI practice and result-driven.
This verse is recognized as a command. See, e.g., Eric Lyons, “Meet Me in Galilee,” Apologetics Press (2005) (“Jesus commanded Mary Magdalene and the other women to tell the disciples to go meet the Lord in Galilee”). Some might argue this is not a command for all women today. If Jesus’s command to the women reported in Matthew 28:5-10 and John 20:17-18 is not a command for women today, then does that mean the Great Commission at Matthew 28:16-20 (command to the disciples) just a few sentences away is not a command for us today?
Jesus revealed the good news of his resurrection to Mary M. Yes or no, do you dispute that Jesus told her to go and tell the men the good news that the Word revealed to the women and to go and tell the men what the Word wants the men to do?
One of the first things Christ did upon his resurrection was to designate women to go and preach to men. Christ is the Word (John 1).:
#1: Christ asked that we follow his example.
#2: The example he has given us is this: Christ asks women to (a) tell the assembled men the good news that the Word reveals to them and (b) tell the assembled men what the Word wants them to do.
#3: Preaching includes (a) telling the assembly the good news that the Word reveals and (b) telling the assembly what the Word want them to do.
#4: Thus, Christ asks women to preach to men.
Indeed, it was the first thing we have recorded that Christ did upon his resurrection.
(A) The historical interpretation of the scripture for centuries held that women are inferior and thus must not teach or have authority over men anywhere (not in the church, not in the workplace, not in government, not in the military, not in society, not in public, not in ….). (B) No one follows the historical interpretation today. (C) If you want to claim that the people closer to it in history knew better, then you are claiming that (1) women are inferior and that (2) women are prohibited by the Bible from having authority over men anywhere. Is that what you are claiming? (D) Otherwise, give me a break with this “historical evidence” nonsense. The entire Protestant Reformation was about throwing off the Roman Catholic church’s centuries long grip on doctrine. Are you claiming that all the interpretations over those centuries were correct instead? Please.
Arguing that since Jesus asked 12 Jewish men to be “the 12 disciples” (and, remember, one of those men betrayed him and that he chose no non-Jewish men) but did not explicitly say why he chose Jewish men is a reason for demanding that women not speak in the worship service and for asserting that it is not sex discrimination to insist that they not speak there because Jesus didn’t choose any women as part of the 12: (a) it is irrational, (b) contradicts the Bible, in which God asks women over and over and over again to speak to, teach, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere, (c) seeks to excuse your engaging in sex discrimination, which is a sin, (d) and an obvious pretext to engage in and defend sex discrimination.
That argument is the equivalent of arguing that since the 12 were Jewish, that it is OK to discriminate against non-Jewish people and prohibit them from speaking in church. Or that since the 12 were from Asia, it is OK to discriminate against those from Africa and prohibit them from speaking in church.
That argument is the equivalent of arguing that since Jesus chose a woman as the first evangelist that he is the Messiah, that men are prohibited from evangelizing. Or arguing that since Jesus chose women as the first to go tell what the Word revealed to them and to go tell what the Word wants others to do, that men are prohibited from preaching.
It is straightforward to see that that argument is irrational.
Also, Jesus did not engage in sex discrimination in picking what is known as the first 12 disciples. Females could serve as disciples and did so. See Luke 8, for example. Women weren’t prohibited from being disciples. Likely first 12 were men due to need to start camping & sleeping together immediately as lived together, but is inference, as Jesus gave no significance to sex of disciples, & other disciples were female.
God’s example of 12 male Jews as disciples in order to go first to Israel, does not justify your disriminatination against females. Nor does it justify your discrimination against non-Jews or any race or ethnicity.
And it contradicts the Bible, as God asks women over and over and over again in the Bible to speak to, teach, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere. I set out 20+ passages that show this.
And sex discrimination and sexism is sin (see, e.g., Galatians 3:28; James 3:17; Genesis 1:26-27; 1 Samuel 16:7; Acts 10:34-35; James 2; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:25-37; Luke 6:27-36; Matthew 7:12)
Some argue the Bible makes sexist comments.
This isn’t even close. Look at Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
20+ passages I noted to you earlier in which God asks women over and over and over again to speak to, teach, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere.
And it is very easy to see that the 2-3 sentences on which you rely to demand that women not speak at all in the assembly do not mean that at all. In fact, around 96-97% of Christianity practices differently—-they do not completely prohibit women from speaking in the assembly.
Again, it isn’t the scripture that is sexist. Such an argument simply tries to make it sexist.
Sex discrimination, including blocking women from speaking, is immoral, harms young girls and women, and is a sin.
The picture is from pixabay.com.
Several aspects of CENI are controversial, and it has been criticized for treating the Bible as a rule book, starting from the odd concept that those created in God’s image are not authorized to do anything, promoting the worship of the Bible (Biblicism), and ignoring other ways God’s will might be revealed (nature, reason, etc.). To be clear, I am not endorsing the CENI approach. I am pointing out that under a CENI approach, the Bible commands women to speak, teach, etc., in the worship assembly and indicates it is perfectly acceptable for women to have authority over men in the assembly. Thus, since women are commanded to actively serve under one of the, if not the, *hardest possible standards* to meet within the Churches of Christ hermeneutical palate (CENI), women would be authorized to actively serve (preach, read scripture, etc.) in the mixed worship assembly under virtually any standard applied.
Jesus had something to say about this “place it safe” argument:
Here’s what he said to the person who played it safe with the talent given to that person:
“24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’
26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?
27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.
28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.
29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”
As to why none of the 12 disciples (the first 12) were women, why the 12 were all men:
There were female apostles (see Romans 16:7). We don’t know why they weren’t among the first 12. It may be b/c some guy on Facebook would say “women can’t be in leadership b/c they were among the original 12 and when they were in leadership, the leadership betrayed Jesus.”
More likely, it was b/c the 12 camped and lived with Jesus for 3+ yrs and women could not do that in that society. We don’t know.
But all 12 were Jewish. By your reasoning, you would have to argue only Jewish people can speak, teach, and have authority in the worship service.
Female elders / female deacons
There were female elders/bishops/deacons, too. Elders/overseers.bishops/deacons are discussed only 4 times in the NT and females are discussed explicitly 3 out of the 4 and implied the 4th time. Males are only discussed 3 of the 4 times, so females are actually discussed more!!
It’s in Romans 16:1-2 (female deacon identified by name, Phoebe); 1 Tim 3 (there it is overseers and deacons, male are discussed explicitly and females are discussed explicitly in v 11), Titus (there it is elders, male (1:5-9) and female elders (2:2-3) discussed explicitly), and 1 Peter 5 (male elder Peter exhorting elders, using male plural but we know male plurals used to indicate combined male and female).
The Bible specifies female elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3:11. In 1 Tim 3, after Paul describes qualifications for elder that mentions some male and describes qualifications for deacon that mentions some male, he says “In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” (3:11). He is saying, in the same way the women elders or the women deacons are to have those kinds of qualities, too. It is well recognized that 3:11 just as likely refers to female deacons now, and many recognize it could refer to female elders, too.
Titus 2:3 refers to presybytidas (Greek) the feminine plural form of the same masculine plural form used in Titus 1:5 referring to male elders, presybterous. Since Titus 2:3 uses the feminine form of the word used in Titus 1:5 that indisputably refers to male elders, Titus 2:3 refers to and gives the qualifications for female elders. In fact, it uses qualifications parallel to those in 1 Tim 3.
1 Tim 3:11 and Titus 2:2-3 have not traditionally been translated as elder, likely because of the assumption in the past that women could not be elders, somewhat similar to how Junia in Romans 16:7 was changed and written as the male name Junias for a very long time, likely because of the assumption that women could not be apostles. (A few translations translate Titus 2 as “elder” or “elder women,” such as the Aramaic Bible in Plain English and Darby Bible.) People are waking up to this now. Coming to a Bible near you soon ….
And those aren’t a check-list of qualifications for elders in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. In other words “husband of one wife” is not required. If a person had to meet each of those as a check-list of requirements, there would be no elders. No human being meets all of those. Not Paul, not Jesus, not any of your elders, not any of your deacons. 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 just express the general kind of person they should strive to be (e.g., faithful). You can’t treat “husband of one wife” as a must have without treating them all as a must have without being a sexist.
Lots of other female leaders Jesus chose. Jesus chose
+ a woman as the first preacher of his identity as the Messiah. (John 4:1-42)
+ women as the first preachers of the good news of his resurrection. (John 20:16-19; Matt 28:9-10)
+ women as prophets. (Luke 2:36-38; Acts 21:8-9; Acts 2:17-18).
+ women who put their freedom and lives at risk for the gospel. (Romans 16:3-7)
+ women who established churches in their homes (Col. 4:15; Acts 12:12, 17:1-9
+ women as disciples. (e.g., Acts 9:36; Luke 8:1-3)
+ women to hold up as examples of how to lead (Luke 21:1-4; Luke 15:8)
+ women to speak, pray, and prophesy in the church (1 Cor 11:5)
+ women to admonish men in the church (Col 3:16)
+ women to teach men (1 Cor 14:26; Matt 28:19; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Titus 2:3; Acts 18:24-26; Acts 2:17-18; Col 3:16)
+ women who stood at the cross when nearly all the men had scattered.
since the very first thing Christ did upon his resurrection is ask women to go speak to assembled men and tell what the Word revealed to them and what the Word wants them to do & those who demand women not preach demand women not to go speak to assembled men and tell what the Word revealed to them and what the Word wants them to do, it isn’t shaky at all. We should follow Christ’s example and ask women to go speak to assembled men and tell what the Word reveals to them. Thanks.
Evangelists and preachers are indeed messengers, messengers of the good news, the gospel. Indeed, the word evangelist derives from forms of messenger in the Greek. You can look this up.
1 Tim is a letter, and Paul tells us at the very beginning of his letter **** the kind of teaching and authority **** about which he is writing Timothy. Paul tells Timothy to stay in Ephesus to “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer …. Such things promote controversial speculations …. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about ….” (1 Tim 1:3-7) Teachers of the law of the time asserted authority even greater than the written scripture and had conflicted with Jesus.
Paul emphasizes this in 1 Tim 2:12 by using an highly unusual Greek term — authentein — here, the only time it is used in the Bible — sometimes translated usurp authority — that refers to a domineering kind of authority, not the usual kind of authority. Paul used the usual word for authority plenty of times. He used this rare word here instead. Second- through fifth-century translations of the Bible translated it to refer to “dominate a man” and “domineer over a man.”
In other words, Paul is referring in 1 Tim 2:12 to the kind of teaching and authority like the “teachers of the law” do (as 1 Tim 1:3-7 indicates). This is a final-say-for-all-religious-instruction-everywhere and greater-than-the-scripture type of teaching and authority.
And he is referring to such teaching and authority, as 1 Tim 1:3-7 says, that involves disturbing the peace by being domineering and that is of false doctrine and that is done by people who are uneducated (who do not know what they are talking about), as 1 Tim 1:3-7 and authentein indicates.
Thus, in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul says he does not allow a woman to in a domineering, unprepared, etc., manner relative to men and engage in false, authoritative, “final-say”-type teaching. This doesn’t mean Paul is saying little girls can’t read scripture in church forever or women can’t lead singing or women can’t preach or women can’t help with communion or women can’t lead prayer or …..
He is telling Timothy he doesn’t allow a woman to engage in some pretty severe behavior.
Women are not prohibited from reading scripture, leading singing, leading prayer, etc., in the usual, peaceful manner by Paul. Most of the rest of the Christian world has figured this out. The Church of Christ is nearly alone in completely prohibiting women from speaking and leading in the worship service. I think it is around 4% of Christianity that does what CoC does. A few large denominations (SBC, Roman Catholic) prohibit women from the office of senior pastor / priest, but they don’t prohibit them from leading singing, reading scripture in the worship service, speaking, etc. And many of those denominations are reconsidering even that (see Beth Moore).
It’s a sin to prohibit women the way the CoC does. God asks women to speak.
It’s not different than the race issue. It is discrimination based on an immutable characteristic. Just b/c the person doing the discriminating thinks what they are doing is ordained by God does not make it not sex discrimination. Just like if a person thinks that race discrimination is ordained by God does not make it not race discrimination.
At one time, lots of Christians thought that Genesis 9 meant that God commands that black people cannot have authority over white people (the so-called Curse of Ham, was used to justify slavery), just like lots of Christians in the Churches of Christ today think that 2-3 sentences in the Bible mean that God commands that women cannot teach or have authority over men. Some Christians today still think that the Curse of Ham applies, btw.
It is the majority of Churches of Christ—the ones who prohibit women from speaking—that are doing what society believes and following the crowd. They are doing what society and “the crowd” has believed for centuries—- society has believed in discriminating against women.
The Catholic Church, for example, who largely controlled church doctrine from the top down from very early until the Reformation, gave in to society’s view on this issue most of the last 20 centuries, and that view was to discriminate against women in virtually every way and to treat them as lesser creatures. That view caused a warped interpretation of 3-4 sentences in the Bible to triumph over the many passages expressing mutual submission, women using their gifts just like men, women prophesying and teaching and leading just like men, etc.
God asks women over and over and over again to speak to, teach, lead, and have authority over men, in an assembly and elsewhere (see link). And God says “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)
But the early church began discriminating against women, prohibiting them from speaking, matching what society did.
Relatively not long after the Reformation and when the people began to get access to scripture, women began to be ordained. What Highland is doing is going against that society and going against that crowd and going with what God asks.
Paul was teaching what he was commanded as an Apostle. And what he, Jesus, and God taught in the scripture we are talking about when you read in context instead of snips of sentences out of context is this:
1. Women are to speak to, lead, teach, and have authority over men. (Col 3:16; Ephesians 5:18-20; 1 Cor 14:23-25; 1 Cor 14:26; 1 Cor 14:31; Matt 28:19; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Luke 2:25-38; 1 Cor 14:5, 12-17; 2 Kings 22:11-20; John 16-19; Matt 28:9-10; Acts 18:24-26; Titus 2:3-5; Judges 4-5; Luke 2:36-38; Acts 21:8-9; 1 Cor 7:4; Ephesians 5:21; Acts 2:17-18; Galatians 3:28; 1 Cor 14:39; 1 Samuel 25:14-35; Romans 16:1-2; Romans 16:7; John 4:28-29)
2. Married women are not to speak disruptive questions in the assembly; instead they are supposed to ask those to their husbands at home. To do otherwise causes a disgrace. (1 Cor 14:34-35)
3. I do not permit a woman to teach false, authoritative doctrine in a domineering way that creates conflict with a man; instead, any teaching, etc., must be peaceful. (1 Tim 2:12)
To block women from speaking and leading in the assembly is blocking them from what God asks. It blocks them from fulfilling the Greatest Commandment, what Jesus asks — to love (worship!) God with all their heart, mind, and soul, and to love (serve!) others. It is a sin to block them………………………………………………
The OT might express very specific criteria for priest. Many view the text as expressing these requirements:
(a) unshaven head (Lev 21:5)
(b) no shaven beard edges
(c) uncut body
(d) not profane God’s name (v. 6)
(e) not married to a woman who is divorced from her previous husband (v. 7)
(f) not married to a woman who engaged in prostitution
(g) no defect (v. 17)
(h) not blind, lame, disfigured, deformed, hunchback, or dwarf, or having a crippled foot, crippled hand, eye defect, festering or running sores, or damaged testicles (vv. 18-20)
(i) Israelite (Numbers 8) (debated; cf Melchizedek of Gen 14:18 and Psalm 110)
(j) that is a Levite
(k) that is at least 25 years old
(l) that is in the blood line of Aaron (Exodus 28-29; 40:12-15) (debated; cf Levite Priesthood of Deut 17-27, Exodus 32, Mal 2; cf David, Psalm 110:4; cf David’s sons, 2 Samuel 8:18)
(m) male (Exo 40:12-15; Exo 29:9; Num 18:7) (debated; eg “his sons” might refer just to Aaron’s sons, directly, not excluding for example, his granddaughters and other females in their line; cf King David not viewing the expressions of Ex on the subject as applying as sons of Aaron, at least, note above; cf also Galatians 4:1-7; Romans 8:13-17 (including females in “sons”)
I’m not confident God excluded females from serving as priests in the OT. The traditional places to which folks point to make such a claim — e.g., the use of “sons” and “male” in Exodus 40:12-15; 29:9; Numbers 3:3, 10; 18:8-11 — might refer to Aaron’s sons as exactly that, his direct sons, and might not exclude, for example, his granddaughters, e.g., daughters of Aaron’s sons, and other females, maybe in the line of Aaron and his sons or maybe not. But the early recipients of such direction might have interpreted God’s instructions to exclude females and to apply broader exclusion than intended in their patriarchal, tribal, generational lens. And there’s reason to believe that at least David did not view what is in Ex, Num, etc. (sons of Aaron, for example), as applying beyond referring to Aaron and his direct sons. (Psalm 110:4; 2 Samuel 8:18), possibly viewing it as a requirement for the described Levites but not as an exclusion of others.
So, while I understand women (along with non-Levites, etc.) highly likely were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood in practice by the Aaronic priesthood, there is reason to believe that it was not God who was doing the excluding, but man. So, the answer to why no female priests might include sin, sexist views and traditions, and Patriarchy. This might be one of the reasons for the corrective expression of 1 Peter 2:5, 9, expressing a universal priesthood.
Also see Revelation 1:5-6( “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”); Rev 5:10 (“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”).
So, yes, one can take a view that God discriminated in some ways to limit the priesthood at that time. Did God intend to limit the priesthood to just males forever or just when he picked Aaron and his sons and they happened to be all male? Well, we know it was not forever, given the universal priesthood expressed (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Was it longer than just the precise time God picked Aaron and his sons? There’s good reason reason to believe that such was the only time and to believe the expressions cited in Exodus, Lev, and Numbers were not enduring, given, e.g., David and his sons (Psalm 110:4 and 2 Sam 8:18), who were of the tribe of Judah, not Levites or in the blood line of Aaron or his sons.
Regardless, even if one takes the former view, God doing something does not give you license to do it. God killing all the first-born Egyptian sons, or nearly every person on Earth (the Flood), or the Canaanite children, for example, does not give you license to do the same or similar. ** People ** are engaged in discrimination. Just because some think they are doing God’s will by discriminating does not make it not discrimination. It is sex discrimination to prohibit women and little girls from speaking. Some people have looked into it and think it is God’s will. Some people have looked into it and think it is not God’s will. Some people have never looked into it and are simply going along with what was done before them. Some people prohibit women because they are scared other people will leave the church if women are allowed to speak. Some people … The point is that, regardless, it is sex discrimination. And it is not God’s will. There’s lots of scripture asking women to speak, teach, lead, and have authority over men. And there are only 2-3 sentences to which people point to claim women shouldn’t speak in church. And when one looks at those 2-3 sentences in context, instead of just reading them by themselves out of context, it’s pretty easy to see that they don’t mean that women should be completely barred from speaking.
Numbers 18 mentions Aaron’s daughters. It is not clear to me that Aaron had daughters at the time his sons became priests or even at the time the instructions in Numbers 18 are given (could be future daughters). I have not looked closely at this. It doesn’t seem material.
Requirements like those in Lev 21 are possibly directed to Aaron’s direct sons. See, for example, Lev 21:1 (“The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, …”).
Moreover, passages like Galatians 4:1-7 and Romans 8:13-17 in which females are included as “sons” might have some bearing when one has the Bible interpret itself, so to speak.
Lev. 10:12-14 could refer to Aaron’s daughters or granddaughters (“Moses said to Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, “Take the grain offering left over from the food offerings prepared without yeast and presented to the Lord and eat it beside the altar, for it is most holy. Eat it in the sanctuary area, because it is your share and your sons’ share of the food offerings presented to the Lord; for so I have been commanded. But you and your sons and your daughters …”)
As another example, “male” in Numbers 18:10, viewed in context of Numbers 18:8-10 (“8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, “I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented to me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion, your perpetual share. 9 You are to have the part of the most holy offerings that is kept from the fire. From all the gifts they bring me as most holy offerings, whether grain or sin[a] or guilt offerings, that part belongs to you and your sons. 10 Eat it as something most holy; every male shall eat it. You must regard it as holy.”) could (a) refer back to Aaron’s direct sons mentioned in verse 8 as those are the males to whom such offerings are given, not “every male” (indeed, verse 10 can’t mean “every male,” as some males were specifically excluded, including non-Levite, blemished, etc.) and/or (b) refer to who is required to eat it (shall) and not to who may eat it.
Numbers 18:10 — It looks like the “eat it” is a 2nd or 3rd person masculine singular, possibly meaning “you shall eat it” or “he shall eat it” or something along those lines, with the term translated above as “every male” possibly meaning “every” male or “each” male; that is, possibly meaning each male just mentioned of the sons (i.e., Aaron’s sons, the priests) shall eat, whether they want to or not.
Numbers 18:11 (“This also is yours: whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the wave offerings of the Israelites. I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.”) mentions both sons and daughter of Aaron. Similarly, this might refer to Aaron’s literal, direct daughters and sons, not a command for the entire line of Aaron.
Note that Numbers 8:24 is sometimes translated to include “man,” “sons,” or “he,” but none of those appear in the Hebrew. Cf. KJV (“This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:”); ESV (““This applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall come to do duty in the service of the tent of meeting.”); and NASB (““This is what applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall enter to perform service in the work of the tent of meeting.”) with CSB (““In regard to the Levites: From twenty-five years old or more, a man enters the service in the work at the tent of meeting.”) and with NIV (“”This applies to the Levites: Men twenty-five years old or more shall come to take part in the work at the tent of meeting, …”), which is usually more careful.
Numbers 8:23-26’s reference to “men” might refer to those who “shall” work at the tent of the meeting, leaving it optional for women, i.e., not excluding women from work at the tent of the meeting but making it mandatory for male Levites as described, assigning males the work but not excluding females from it.
Exodus 40:12-16 specifies that Aaron’s sons are to be anointed by Moses as priests. God refers to a priesthood “that will continue through their generations,” indicating neither that it will be only their male descendants that will be priests or even that it will only be their descendants, just that the priesthood will continue through those generations (likely refers to blood line but could also refer to time): “12 “Bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the tent of meeting and wash them with water. 13 Then dress Aaron in the sacred garments, anoint him and consecrate him so he may serve me as priest. 14 Bring his sons and dress them in tunics. 15 Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations.” 16 Moses did everything just as the Lord commanded him.”
So, while I understand women highly likely were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood, there is reason to believe that it was not God who was doing the excluding, but man.
The first 12 apostles were Jewish. By your logic, only Jews could preach and lead singing in our worship service.
Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that since the first 12 were Jewish, it is OK to prohibit non-Jews from speaking in church (as you argued about women, “they were there”).
Or that since the first 12 were from the Asian continent, it is OK to discriminate against those from Africa and prohibit them from speaking in church (as you argued about women, “they were there”).
Why not as one of the first 12? He doesn’t say, but the most likely things are that remember they traveled around sleeping together for 3.5 years. A woman in that society could not have done that without some extreme difficulty, moral implications for themselves and the upstart ministry of Jesus, etc.
People can’t take a Christian speaking about love seriously knowing the Christian engages in sex discrimination and insists little girls watch their moms be discriminated against every Sunday. That’s not love.
To talk about “roles for men and women in the church” as appropriate is sexist. The same as talking about “roles for white people and black people” as appropriate is racist. Both are sins and harmful to people. God calls *** individuals *** to various and different callings over time. The Apostle Peter said, to women and men, “Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. ….” (1 Peter 4:10-11)
Passages people cite as defining “roles” do not define “roles” for sexes. They exhort people, but don’t tell the other sex not to engage in what is expressed, for example.
Titus 2:3 asks older to “teach what is good,” for example. It doesn’t say “only to women.” It says teach what is good — indicating to everyone — and then goes on to say one way they do that is by teaching young women. Do you think that Paul is telling older women to teach * only * young women?! We know that is not true, as they teach young men, too (see the young Timothy, ….).
And telling men that when they pray they should do it without anger or quarrelling is not telling women they should not pray.
Mainly when people cite those regarding “roles” of sexes, they have confused exhortations with restrictions.
If a sentence says “Jane, love your husband.” That does not mean that her husband should not love her. It does not mean that no one named Jane should love their husband. It does not mean that Jane should love no one else. …. But that’s how people apply those passages when arguing about roles of women. They don’t do that with other scripture passages.
The Bible does not defines “roles” based on sex. The term role is nowhere to be found. The concept of “roles” based on sex is something made up. There are no “role definitions” based on sex to do away with in the first place.
The context of Galatians 3:28 is not baptism or that all are acceptable to God regardless of nationality/gender/position.
The context is not people being baptized or wanting to be baptized or anything like that and is not looking at, as you say, who is “acceptable to God.”
Instead it is written to people *** who have already been baptized — they were baptized already *** and telling those who have already been baptized what that means to them. It means they are all children of God, there is no male or female, Jew of Gentile, etc. in God’s view now that they are in Jesus, and they are all heirs.
Galatians 3:23-29, the passage in which 3:28 appears, says this: “23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
In other words, Paul writes to the Galatians to say that before faith in Christ, we were under the Law of Moses. Before, it was our guardian, allowing us to be justified by faith. But now that we have Christ, we are not longer under the Law of Moses. (vv. 23-25) Through Christ, we are “all children of God” — “all” — because, Paul says to the Galatians, “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (vv. 26-27). OK, all are children of God because they were baptized. Once baptized, though, are we viewed differently from one another by God? In God’s eyes, no, we are “all one in Christ Jesus.” In Christ, which we all are, we are all “one.” “One.” “One.”
Paul uses the actual Greek term there for one, the number 1: heis. It is not implied there, but spelled out that he means heis, “one.”
Well, all of God’s children, everyone, is viewed by God as “one.”
That’s nice but surely God views some children differently. Surely God views us Jews — God’s people — differently from those Gentiles. And surely God views us free persons differently from those slaves. And surely God views men as differently than women.
Verse 28 explains “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
All of those are just “one” in God’s eyes.
V. 29 continues “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
All that are part of that “one” are Abraham’s seed, all heirs.
So, this doesn’t say who is “acceptable to God” or have as its context baptism, as you claimed. Instead, it is written to those already baptized to tell them about that being in Christ means. And some of the things it means is they are all “one” and there is no male and female in God’s eyes.
Since all are all God’s children and “one,” that some of those “one” are claiming authority or claiming a greater inheritance or claiming any difference in God’s due to their freedom status, sex, or nationality is plainly wrong, as “one” is the same and cannot claim authority over itself or inherit differently from itself, etc. One.
And v. 28 makes it even clearer to those already-baptized people: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Don’t claim, God says, that there are differences in God’s eyes between these for they are all “one.”
Yet, some claim differences for one set of those, claiming in God’s eyes that female are to have only certain roles.
How can “one” be prohibited from certain roles? It can’t, for it is one. heis. And God has said clearly there is not “male or female” in God’s eyes.
So that people arguing that God views women as inappropriate for preaching, for leading prayer, for teaching Bible class, for serving as a deacon, etc., contradicts what Gal 3:28 says, that God views women and men as “one” and that being “one” includes that, in God’s eyes, there is no male and female, Jew and Gentile, etc.
I think the book “Two Views …,” is the best “if you are going to look at one book …” book on scripture related to the subject. It gives equal space to egal advocates and hierarchical comp advocates to debate on paper and the focus of the discussion is on scripture. https://www.amazon.com/Two-Views-Women-Ministry-Counterpoints/dp/031025437X/
It doesn’t have anyone advocating the “third view,” the Churches of Christ view (total exclusion from speaking, teaching, and actively serving in the worship service), though. The leading book by an advocate of that view is Everett Ferguson’s “Women in the Church.” I’ll save my commentary on it besides saying I am just pointing this out as the leading book of the genre and not as a recommendation. https://www.amazon.com/Women-Church-Biblical-Historical-Perspectives/dp/1939838193/
Missing from these books is much discussion beyond the text of scripture —- to the harm done, its similarity to racial discrimination, the impact on individuals and the church, etc. I’m not aware of much book-treatment of those subjects in depth and tend to find those mostly in articles (though there are a lot of those). The best one I’m aware of is one called “She Preached the Word …” that describes an in-depth study that observed long-term harm done to young girls by having male-only congregational leaders. I summarize part of it here — https://authentictheology.com/2018/11/28/church-of-christ-practice-harms-girls-long-term-suggests-2018-study/.
I’ve written a lot on the subject and you can many good sources, some of which are books, in the Sources & Notes section of each article and in the links in the body of some of the articles. You can find the articles here — https://authentictheology.com/category/women/.
Excluding women in church is from a sinful *choice* by some to select 1 interpretation of a few Bible verses over other interpretations that r reasonable and sound & by some (often, preachers) to support it knowing it’s wrong & by many to negligently go along w/out looking deeply
Added 1/1/2019: See this article for cites to multiple Churches of Christ-related materials on women’s roles: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1901&context=leaven.
Added: When Miriam summons the assembly to sing to YHWH in Numbers 15:21, is the “them” in verse 21 masculine such that it indicates she is not just leading women but both men and women? Also note Micah 6 says Israel is led by Moses, Aaron, and Miriam — it doesn’t say women are led by Miriam but “you” are?
Added: Interesting line of inquiry. Forms of halak (Strongs 1980…) are used in both Judges 4:8-9 and Ruth 1:16. Try reading Judges 4:8-9 without the word immi (5973, translated “with you” in several translations). Makes it sound like Deborah is going first. Note, too, that immi can also be translated as “before me,” see the 5973 entry.
Added: John Mark Hicks spoke on this —
Lead singing, etc., discussion to analyze. Female singers were part of the choir and helped lead singing. Ezra 2:64-65, 70; Nehemiah 7:66-67. The singers of Ezra 2:70 (masculine term) includes the female singers of Ezra 2:65. 1 Chron 25 is about lineage, not about who participated in the choir. The writer of Chronicles includes women (see, e.g., 2 Chron 35:25), which appears to relate to the singers in 2 Chron 35:15. “Sons of Asaph” may mean descendants of Asaph. See, e.g., 2 Chron 5:12 (brothers and kindred includes women?). “All” relative to 1 Chron 25:5-6 appears to include the daughters. Ezra 2:64-65 and Nehemiah 7:66-67 indicate women participated. Young women were with the singers and instrument players in the procession of Psalm 68:25 (singers and instrument players could have included women) Was there a Court of Women in the original Temple? Women proclaimed the word of the Lord in Psalm 68:11 (“The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng:”). Prophesying was done accompanied by musical instructions. See 1 Chronicles 25:1. See also 2 Samuel 19:35.
Miriam led Israel (women and men). Also see Miriam’s song, Exodus 15.
David Lipscomb. “Queries.” Gospel Advocate 49 (October 17, 1907): 662 (quotes 1 Corinthians 14:34 and says “He says the same rule governs as in ‘the law’ (of Moses). Under the law of Moses, Miriam sung and improvised and led in the song. (Ex. 15:20.)”).
David Lipscomb. “Should Women Sing in the Worship?” Gospel Advocate no. 44 (October 31, 1907): 697: “My answer was, the same law prevail in the churches that did in ‘the law,’ and under that law women sung in public, even composed the song. I gave an example. I might give a number, but one example approved of God is as good as a thousand.”
Consider whether Paul’s teaching regarding head (in household codes and 1 Cor 11) and the “two becoming one flesh” are concepts associated with the ancient Hebrew view of “corporate personality.” See, e.g., H. Wheeler Robinson, Aubrey J. Johnson, E. Earle Ellis, Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, and Frank Stagg. Did it express that God intend that man and woman rule, have dominion, etc., as a unified corporate personality, i.e., as a union?
“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”
Articles on Misc
Of course, “husband of one wife” in 1 Tim 3 is not a prerequisite to be a preacher (it does not require anyone to be married or to be a man, either). The items in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 (e.g., have children) are not a check-list of requirements to be an elder, pastor, or preacher. Indeed, Paul — single, no children — encouraged people to remain single. And Jesus was single with no children. Paul notes he was “appointed a preacher and an apostle” (1 Tim 2:7).
It is highly unlikely that 14:26 is describing the disorder or chaos or is a reprimand. It starts with the same phrase used 11 verses above in v 15 (Ti oun estin; …) where Paul then says what he will do as an example of what others should do. Cf. v. 15 (“Ti oun estin? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.”) with v. 26 (“Ti oun estin, adelphoi? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.”)
The same phrase (Ti oun estin) begins 1 Cor 3:5-11ff where Paul also explain what it is, in a positive sense, and what should be done (“What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. … For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building. By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care.”).
And the same phrase (Ti oun estin) begins Acts 21:22-23ff, where Luke explains what should be done. (“What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. …”)
Likewise, Jesus uses it positively in Luke 20:17 to describe things to come.
The meaning of apostle (apostolos) is messenger, envoy, or the like. (See https://biblehub.com/greek/652.htm) Jesus certainly designated Mary and the other women at resurrection as his messengers, envoys, etc. (see, e.g., John 20:10-19; Matt 28:7-10) It’s a man-made doctrine to define apostle only as someone given authority by Jesus over demons and to heal. Even the 12 were called apostles before such occurrence. (see, e.g., Luke 6:13)
Indeed, it is likely that Junia is described as an apostle in Romans.
For me, a person’s or organization’s active advocacy, justification, and support for sexism, racism, or similar things impacts to the negative how I perceive what they have to say in general and how I think they likely affect other people overall. (sexism includes, for example, discrimination against women)
That’s true even when the person says they think God told them to do it.
I know others say that, for them, such things impact to the positive. Or view it as neutral or insignificant.
And I know that there are explanations offered for it — a product of their time, a life-time of normalization and indoctrination, a step on a journey, etc., etc.
I’m not without sympathy or empathy for such persons. I sat in the pew and served at a church that engaged in discrimination against women and girls weekly, and so supported it that way myself, for years. I recognized later that I was negligent, at least, towards the women and girls around me at that time and that the church’s culture and normalization overwhelmed my listening to the Holy Spirit, my seeing the harm that was being done, and my understanding of scripture on this question. And I recognized later that others looking at my witness then would have been right for it to impact to the negative how they perceived it.
People claiming that egalitarianism is simply following culture today, they should remember two things. First, discrimination against women and girls has been the secular culture for centuries. The concept that women should be barred from leading, preaching, speaking, etc., is a species of that secular culture. One could not tell the difference.
Second, the concept of justice sometimes comes from unrighteous sources. Luke 18:1-8, for example: “Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not become discouraged, 2 saying, “In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect any person. 3 Now there was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice against my [a]opponent.’ 4 For a while he was unwilling; but later he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God nor respect any person, 5 yet because this widow is bothering me, I will give her justice; otherwise [b]by continually coming she will wear me out.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge *said; 7 now, will God not bring about justice for His elect who cry out to Him day [c]and night, and will He delay long for them? 8 I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find [d]faith on the earth?””
Some on “inerrancy”:
The word “inerrancy” seems to be used often as a dog-whistle word, e.g., a religious leader who disagrees with another person’s interpretation of scripture will sometimes accused the person of rejecting “inerrancy,” which will rile up the leader’s supporters and will signal to them to reject the person and to oppose the person.
“Inerrancy,” for many, is defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It’s a multi-page document, one more dense than most people are used to reading. One can, of course, debate whether the Statement correctly defines inerrancy.
Highly respected, conservative scholar William Lane Craig explains or summarizes “inerrancy” and the Chicago Statement in a straightforward way as meaning this: Scripture is truthful in all it teaches.
He explains, for example, “Rather we should understand inerrancy in terms of what the Bible affirms or what the Bible teaches or what the Bible asserts. That is where the Bible speaks with authority and inerrantly.”
He discusses it in these two places, for example:
Some include within the definition of “inerrancy” that Scripture is “God’s authoritative Word to us” and others see authority and inerrancy as separate, but related, concepts.
Most Evangelical Egalitarians, for example, believe (a) Scripture is truthful in all it teaches, (b) Scripture doesn’t teach to discriminate against females regarding functions or roles in church (or in other matters), and (c) Scripture teaches that such sexism is sin.
Some who argue for maintaining restrictions in the church based on sex claim that complementarianism is special among “second-order” doctrines. They use a categorization defined by a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention denomination in a 2005 article. https://albertmohler.com/2005/07/12/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity
Many evangelical egalitarians would agree that it is special, like race discrimination is special.
But complementarian leaders who make such a claim classify it as special because they say that it frequently implicates “first-order” doctrines because, they argue, it is “a gateway to denial of first order doctrines,” as departures from complementarianism “are often followed or accompanied by more serious departures.” See https://www.dennyburk.com/complementarianism-as-a-second-order-doctrine/
This argument is made without proof.
Most such arguments points towards a departure from the authority of scripture. The SBC article includes “authority of Scripture” within the “first order” category: “First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.” (See above)
Of course, many would say that “authority of Scripture” is not most central and essential to the Christian faith, pointing to a time when folks heard the good news orally, passed from person to person, and were in the Christian faith.
Some evangelical egalitarians will not affirm “inerrancy” when a complementarian leader uses the term because that leader often means or insists that “inerrancy” includes a belief in complementarianism.
They often will, however, affirm the authority of Scripture and that Scripture is truthful in all that it teaches, pointing out that it doesn’t teach what complementarian leaders claim it teaches relative to discrimination against females and the like.
On the 12 disciples, “the 12” —
The number of disciples, 12, likely symbolizes Jacob’s 12 sons (12 of Abraham’s great-grandsons, through Isaac, Jacob’s father), the 12 founding leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel; and “the 12” likely symbolizes a continuity and special relationship between Israel (the Jewish religion) and Jesus, connecting the two, and likely helping to symbolize a fulfilling, a special relationship with Israel, and other matters, as part of a transition to a broader inclusion and a correction of people’s ways (non-Jews (Gentiles) in general, uncircumcised, emphasizing mercy not sacrifice, new covenant, shedding traditions of man, etc.). This can be seen, for example, in Christ telling the 12 that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30) See, e.g., John Mark Hicks, “Women Serving God”; https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/jesuss-female-disciplesand-why-they-werent-among-twelve.
This symbolism of “the 12” might include, for example, symbolizing a continuation of the family of God, Israel, the family of Abraham and Jacob via, for example, inheritance. Such symbolism might also relate to patrilineality and inheritance of land (e.g., the promised land), as inheritance in Israel then was through males. This changes with Christ, as becoming part of the family of Abraham is no longer through such prior matters but is through Christ and is for all.
[I.] Mary, Jesus’s mother, and Elizabeth are probably Jesus’s first two disciples chronologically (Luke 1). And Jesus had female disciples. So not discriminatory based on sex re disciples.
Seems like the question is why were “the 12” all male (and all Jewish and all free and all …). I think the descriptions above are probably it.
We aren’t told expressly. Basic corollary questions in figuring it out include should we view “the 12” as (a) symbolic of those things or (b) telling us a characteristic to be used to exclude people from who should speak, lead, carry out ordained offices and functions, etc.?
Seems like with (i) the possible characteristics being Jewish, free, male, etc., (ii) part of the 12, with those characteristics, betraying Jesus, (iii) people without those characteristics being called to speak, lead, etc. (see link below), and (iv) other scripture, the Biblical message of “the 12” is not (b).
i-iv suggest, too, that interpreting those 3-4 sentences that are used to exclude women from speaking, leading, etc., is an incorrect interpretation. Folks who say “the 12” / (b) confirm their interpretation of those 3-4 sentences seem to ignore or downgrade the above, i-iv, and the below.
[II.] Does considering the 12 the “first” matter as to exclusion of others from leading, speaking, etc.? If the first matters, why not privilege other firsts that seem to speak directly to leading, speaking, ordained by God, etc.?
At multiple points for Jesus, women were chosen as “the first” in scripture, eg, first proclaimers of the message, Elizabeth and Mary for the good news that our Lord is coming (e.g., Luke 1:39-56), Anna for the good news of Christ’s coming redemption of Jerusalem (e.g., Luke 2:25-38), the Samaritan woman at the well for the good news of his status as Messiah (e.g., John 4:1-42), Mary and others for the good news of his resurrection (e.g., John 20:16-17; Matthew 28:9-10)).
Plenty of indication that “first” isn’t to be privileged, as such Biblically (second Adam, first shall be last, John the B 1st but better coming, etc.).
When we have loads of evidence that (a) Christian leaders engaged in sex discrimination against girls and women throughout the centuries — e.g., interpreting female names as male names; expressly stating that God views women as inferior, blameworthy, not to be trusted, not full images of God, etc.; editing scripture to change female names to male names — (b) Christian leaders’ theology relative to women through the centuries considered them not to be trusted, blameworthy, not full images of God, etc.; and (c) the secular culture into which Christianity came and function was and has been severely biased against women on a worldwide basis for centuries and centuries, it would be negligent and foolish not to look skeptically upon and presumptively reject an interpretation or practice advocated by Christian leaders that involves discrimination against girls and women.
All scripture quoted is from the NIV translation unless otherwise specified.