Acts and Epistles (Excerpt - A.D. Norris)

[Resource Manager]

Excerpt from Acts and Epistles

by Alfred Norris (ADN)
 

DECORUM IN THE ASSEMBLIES OF THE COMMUNITY

(an ADN Paraphrase of 1Cor 11:1-16 … pp.351-353)

 

[1] My only authority to command you rests on the commission I received from the Lord Jesus, and the only things in me which you ought to imitate are those in which I myself follow my Lord Jesus Christ. But as to the former, you will only receive and deserve praise in so far as you take seriously the instructions which I give you from Jesus. These are not for you to do as you like with; they are instructions indeed, and it my duty to see to it that you, and the other congregations, carry them out. This is not always the case, and the reference I have just made to eating and drinking at the tables of the Lord provides an opportunity to refer to one of your shortcomings, and ask that you see to it that the matter is rectified.

[2Thess 2.15; 3.6.] The word paradosis, rendered 'tradition' or (here only) ‘ordinance’ in AV, is used disparagingly of the traditions of the elders in the Gospels [Matthew 15,2,3,6; Mark 7 2,5,8,9,13], and of other false or outmoded traditions in other letters of Paul [Galatians 1.14; Colossians 2.8]. But there is nothing wrong with receiving ‘things given over’, provided that the things concerned are handed over with due authority by an authorized servant of God.

 

[3] So let us begin with some undeniable facts. The first of these is that the Lord Jesus Christ really is the Lord, and that He is the head of the entire community of the faithful. The second is that, in the ordinance of God, the woman takes the second place in authority to the man, as the fact of creation plainly shows. The third, which is utterly self-evident, is that the Head of Jesus Christ himself is God.

Note: the use of the word “head” to denote authority s not common in the NT outside the present passage, the only other examples being Matt 21:24; Acts 4:11; 1Peter 2:7; Eph 1:22, 4:15, 5:23; Col 1:18, 2:10,19

 

[4] We are now to compare this symbolic use of the head with our actual physical heads, so that from now on you are to regard the head of man as symbolic of his spiritual head which is Christ; and you are to regard the head of the woman as symbolic of her immediate head in the Lord’s scale of authority, which is the man. The result of this is…

Every man who prays of prophecies with his head covered dishonours his spiritual head who is Christ. [5] Every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered exposes her immediate head, which is man. [7] The man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God for if he did he would be concealing the glory of his spiritual head who is Christ. But the woman should cover her head because she is the glory of the man so that the glory of Christ is not obstructed by the intrusion of the man.
 

The man does not cover his head in the assembly so that its counterpart, Jesus Christ, shall be openly declared. The woman does cover her head so that her immediate head, the man, shall be concealed from view, so that it shall be plain that she too meets to call her Lord directly into remembrance, for “in Christ there is neither male nor female, and ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

 

You evidently accept this of your ordinary members, for it is only needful for me to write about the women who “pray and prophecy”, that is, who take part in the public functions of the congregation. It is easy to see that such women might imagine that they are differently placed in relation to other women, since they have the gifts of the Spirit; but I have to tell you that this is not so. A woman who prays or prophecies under the guidance of the Spirit of God is still a woman and is not exempted from the normal rules governing the behaviour of women in the congregation. [Gal 3:28; Acts 2:17;21:9]

 

Any prophetess who insists on baring her head thereby wittingly or unwittingly allowing the man to stand in the way of Christ, had better go the whole consistent course and shave off her hair as well. For she is guilty of presumption, in baring her head in those circumstances, and if she will not learn that lesson, she might as well go the full length of her rebellion. [7:14-15] And if she stops short of this realising that this would be a shameful thing to do then let her learn the lesson and wear her covering as she should.

[Resource Manager]

Men do not take pride in the length of their hair, nor in the ordinary way of nature would they have any ground to do so, but a women’s hair is a lovely thing, given her as an adornment, but to be exposed to view only on the appropriate occasions, which do not include the official assemblies of the ecclesias.

[This observation concerning the women who will not conform in the matter of covering her head, advising that she should also shave her crown, can only be seen as a piece of earthy but vigorous and effective irony. “If she herself realises that she should not appear bald, then let her see that she should also wear a covering.”
 

There is no ground for supposing that the words of 11:15 “her hair is given her for a covering” means that the hair is adequate for the purpose at the meetings of the congregation, for this would make 11:5 meaningless, and the word for covering in 11:15, peribolaion, has nothing in common with the verbs and other parts of speech used in connection with a covering in the early part of this chapter. It might be well to give a more literal translation to bring this point out.

"11.4-7,13,15: Every man praying or prophesying having something on his head (kata kephalés ekhOn) dishonours his head. Every woman praying or prophesying not veiled on to the head (akatalupto te kephale) dishonours her head... or if she is not veiled upon (ou katakaluptetai)... let her be veiled (katakaluptesthO)... For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled (katakaluptesthai)... Is it fitting for a woman to pray unveiled (akatakalupton)? But her hair is given her for a covering (peribolalou)."

Apart from the general ‘having something on his head’, all the special words are connected with being, or not being, veiled. The reference to the woman’s hair being a covering has nothing to do with such veiling, in either context or vocabulary. The only other use of word in the NT is in Heb 1:12 “the heavens shall he rolled up as a vesture". Paul is plainly saying that the woman’s hair is given to her as an adornment, a mantle, and in no sense can we conclude that, because a woman has hair, this dispenses with the need for any other covering in public worship.
 

11.8-15 The difference in the positions of man and woman in the church is this: the man was created first, and the woman then created to complement and complete the man. It is therefore important that the woman in worship should wear on her head that which shows where the true authority in such a setting really lies, so that the ’angels’, or messengers of God, shall be able to report that His dignity and that of His Son are being honoured. But it is important to remember that, dependent though woman’s position is, man would be incomplete without her. Neither would exist without the other, and the existence of both is dependent on the will of God.
 

11.16 One word more. By some this reasoning may not be easy to receive, and some may wish to be contentious. Let such people know that neither I, Paul, nor the congregations of God in general, admit of any other custom. It was best to accept both reasoning and rule, but, come what may, this is the rule and it must be honoured.
 

The words, "we have no such custom" are often understood as “If you disagree, then please yourselves what you do!" But this is not acceptable, as some other translations will show:
​

"If any man seems to dispute for some other custom. we have no other, neither do the congregations of God" (NWT);
 

"We recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God" (RSV);

 

Alford writes that Paul "cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage…

 

“We have no other Practice, nor have the churches of God" (NASB)

 

“If anyone is prepared to argue the matter, he must know that no such custom is found among us, or in any of God’s churches” (Knox)

[Resource Manager]

THE DUTY OF WOMEN IN THE COMMUNITY

(Excerpt from AD Norris’ ACTS AND EPISTLES p 365-366)

 

14.34-36 Women members of the congregation should not raise their voices to speak in the assemblies, among you as elsewhere. They must accept the subordinate position accorded to them under the Law of Moses also. There must be no pretence that one is only a question either: that, too, is forbidden, and the matter can be dealt with in the privacy of the home. It is a thing to be ashamed of that your women should address the public assemblies. And dare any of you go against the universal custom of the churches? Is it from you that the revelations of God issue? Or were you the only ones who received the message, so that your custom can prevail against the unanimous custom of the rest?
 

[1 Peter 3.1; 1 Timothy 2.11,12; Genesis 116, and the general sense of the Law, as for example, in the right and duty of father or husband to ratify or rescind the vows of daughter or wife [Num 30:3-9]. But the matter is not easy: Paul has already apparently countenanced the ministry of prophetesses in 11.5 above. He may be saying that no other than a prophetess may raise her voice in the assembly
 

There may be an implication that prophetic inspiration was not granted to married women with living husbands, too [cf. Luke 2.36-38; Acts 21.9, where Philip's daughters are specifically said to be virgins). It would be possible to achieve consistency by taking refuge in the view that, since a woman could not speak to be heard at all if she wore the veil customary in those days, therefore even 1 Corinthians 11.5 is tantamount to a prohibition, and the idea has been seriously put forward! We shall retain, though not without problems, the view that Paul is here referring to the generality of women, to which prophetesses were the only authorized exceptions, so that when they died out the custom would die with them.
 

14.37 Let me make one final point. A test which cannot be evaded by anyone who professes prophetic or other writings to you are the very commandments of God, then his claims may stand. But if he denies this, he condemns himself as ignorant of God’s ways. Nothing can, perhaps, then be done for him, but for the rest of you, my instructions stand. To sum it up, you do much better to seek for the gift of prophecy than for any other, but there is a legitimate gift of tongues which you should not prohibit, relatively minor though such a gift is. In whatever you do, though, see to it that due decorum is observed.
 

It is hard to escape the feeling that Paul is dealing with the Corinthians as with children, in his treatment of their claims and ambitions to possess the gifts of the Spirit, more particularly that of tongues. It grows on me that, without actually saying to them that many of their supposed gifts are spurious and trumped up, he writes with such parental indulgence that they would need to have been particularly insensitive if they did not come to fee that Paul was treating them much as a parent treats children competing for toys. They must be allowed this until they have grown out of them, but then they will come to see in what a make-believe world they had been living. When that day comes, they will no longer feel that their childish ambitions amounted to much. They will have put away childish things. While there are, of course, genuine gifts of the Spirit, and some of them were no doubt still in evidence in Corinth, what the Corinthians most needed was to concentrate on the more excellent way, and then the fraudulent gifts would cease to be practised, and the genuine ones would be left, to be exercised with the wisdom and decorum which their true possessors would not fail to show.

 

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER XLV: THE PASTORAL EPISTLES (continued) - THE SECOND LETTER TO TIMOTHY
 

Digression XLV 1: THE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC MINISTRY

(Excerpt from AD Norris’ ACTS AND EPISTLES p 669 -682)
 

PREAMBLE
 

A misogynist hates women. A ’chauvinist’ in the original sense followed Napoleon's admirer Chauvin in an ‘exaggerated and bellicose patriotism’; but in the modem usurpatious sense the word is often preceded by male and followed by pig, and is regarded as one guilty of the smug, irrational belief in the superiority of his own race or sex.
 

So, I do not hate women, and I do not, either rationally or irrationally, think male people are superior to female people. Any reader disposed to think otherwise of me cannot be offered proof, but my conscience is easy on this matter, if on little else in this complex subject.
 

I have submitted this Digression in its earlier form to several believing Bible students. Reactions have varied from agreement with my thesis (in one case with the suggestion that I was a little too ready to see both sides!) to an uncompromising rejection of both my conclusions and my claim to impartiality.
 

My late aunt, Emmeline Norris, was a vigorous advocate of a view considerably more conservative than the conclusions arrived at here, well over half a century ago. That very talented lady was no mouse, and as a schoolboy I was mortally afraid of her. But she decisively spoke up for a view of her station and that of her sisters which was totally opposed to the emancipation I am now to examine. "The Courts of the Women” is extinct these many years, but those who possess it still will know what I mean.
 

I am painfully navigating between Scylla and Charybdis [** Being between Scylla and Charybdis is an idiom deriving from Greek mythology, which has been associated with the proverbial advice "to choose the lesser of two evils"]; but, suicidally in such circumstances, have burned my boats. I should like the problem to go away, with all its associated tensions, but it is too late for that.
 

So, what I have done is to modify and abbreviate the earlier form of this Digression as well as I could, taking as full account as I was able of the adverse criticisms. I am sure that these represent the views of only a small minority of us, but since this Digression is meant to reply to their opinions, I have tried to present these fairly. Indeed, I had at one point thought of presenting both views in considerable detail but decided in the end that this would perhaps perpetuate the air of controversy in a matter which will sooner or later assume a dated air.
 

While I think a private writer has every right and duty to examine acts and proffer exposition, I do not think he should trespass on matters of sanctions and discipline, and this I shall not do. I am in favour of the maximum lawful participation by believing women in the work of the congregation. But the examination of what is lawful must be scriptural, and this is what I am trying to do. Those who differ from me have subscribed to the same canons, so we reason from a common basis. Neither side of the discussion would admit to being moved by either contemporary or traditional opinions as found in Christendom. The Bible constitutes the admitted basis of the discussion.

[Resource Manager]

WOMEN’S ACHEIVMENT IN OUR TIMES

 

It would be tedious to expatiate. We have queens, and female presidents, prime ministers, members of parliament; we have professors, scholars, composers, conductors, poets, playwrights, writers of all categories; we have teachers, financial consultants; we have scientists at the head of their field.
 

We have explorers and adventurers; we have barristers, lawyers, and judges; we have members of the armed forces (in some countries fully trained and on active service) and police. And, of course, as part of the background against which this chapter is written, we have ’bishops’, Priests’, incumbents of parishes, and ministers. In these and more humdrum fields of activity, there is nothing which is physically possible for women which they have not shown themselves capable of doing,

[i am sure that this additional note has no relevance to movements for the religious emancipation of women amongst the people I know, but the ominous development in some quarters of allusions and prayers to God addressed as ’Mother’, and using the pronoun ‘She’, needs to be carefully watched as an indication of the excesses to which such movements can lead. Of course, Mary Baker Eddy was doing this a long time ago with her "Father-Mother God", but there has been a limited recrudescence of the habit in our time.

It is not being chauvinistic, is it, to call attention to the 99.99% uniform references to God (and the Son of God) as ‘He’ in Scripture, and the entirely figurative character of the other 0.01%. As I say, this is not our danger, but it is well to be aware of it, and know how to answer it.]
 

There may be fewer women in proportion, in the more exalted or physically exacting, vocations than their numbers in society at large would apparently have warranted.

 

Reasons for this might include the fact that opportunities have in some vocations only recently been provided, or that education of women has until recently been weighted heavily in favour of a settled domestic life after school leaving or graduation; or even that, when the proportions finally settle down, many women will still prefer the vocation of housewife.

But these are not fundamental reasons, and do not determine whether or not it is ‘right’ (or ‘wrong') for women to hold such positions if they choose to run for them. And as far as we have gone it would be perfectly possible to argue that, in religious communities as well as in other callings, women and those whom they serve should be the only arbiters determining the equilibrium between male and female incumbents. There is such relevance to religious affairs in the current achievements of women in such matters as medicine, business, and administration in general, to name no others, that it is no longer possible to argue that a woman cannot properly discharge the actual duties attaching to religious ministry. When, in addition, via radio and television, I have heard women read the Scriptures or preach the message they want to make known, I have often had to recognize that women may perform such services with a range of competence not inferior to that of men. If it was ever possible to argue that women cannot do such things with ability, even sometimes with distinction, it is not possible now.
 

But that is before we come to consider the scriptural case. And my standpoint must be that this case, if it can be determined, will either strengthen or negate what this general survey has so far shown. And it will be decisive for me whichever of the two it does. 

[Resource Manager]

(1) The Old Testament
 

SCRIPTURAL PRECEDENT
 

consort of Isaiah [isaiah 3]; and one of the returned Jews in Deborah was a judge and a prophetess. Though she would have preferred to remain behind in the military operations which freed her people, the man she chose as commander insisted that she participate:
 

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. The children of Israel came up to her for judgement. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lona, the God of Israel, commanded, Go ...? And Barak said unto her; If thou wilt go with me, I will go: but if thou will not go with me I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. [Judges 4.4-9].
 

Deborah was exceptional, but she represents something which the LORD permitted at least once.
 

There were queens too. Athaliah was the sole ruler over Judah for a period, but she was a wicked woman and a usurper, and no one would wish to cite her as precedent, nor that of Jezebel her mother in the northern kingdom, the power behind the throne in the days of Ahab and for some time later [1 Kings 16.31ff; 2 Kings 11.1-20]. Esther was queen of Persia, though, and even in a Book which evidently by design does not specify the providence of God, we can have no doubt that it was with His blessing. This was a rare instance, too, but it was divinely accepted. There were other prophetesses. Miriam in the days of Moses [Exodus 15.20ff]; Huldah in those of Josiah [2 Kings 22.14+]; the unnamed the time of Nehemiah [Nehemiah 6.14].
 

Hannah the wife of Elkanah made a prophetic utterance which formed the model for those of Mary and Elizabeth in NT.

Two Books are named after women, but rather describe their activities than suggest them as authors. Esther has already been discussed: Ruth the Moabitess appears in such an appealingly compliant guise that no one would wish to cite her as an example of a woman doing a "man”‘s job. That is all. There were, of course, far, far more prophets than prophetesses, and judges and kings than judgesses and Queens. And there were no priestesses at all. Still, the precedents are there. It cannot be said that OT rules out absolutely the participation of women in the public affairs of the old Israel.

 

[Do we need another factor here, again to balance the picture? OT seems to direct attention to the great service rendered to the sons of kings by godly mothers, and the great disservice done by the other kind. "And his mother’s name was ...“ is a sort of refrain. See 1 Kings 14:21,31; 15.2,10; 22:42,52; 2 Kings 3.2,13; 12.1; 14.2; 15.2,33; 18.2; 21.1,19; 22.1; 23:31,36; 24.8,12,15,18; and others in Chronicles. And in all other cases, even when the mother is not named, we cannot doubt the fact of her great influence. Kings had to make up their own minds whether to serve God, of course, as everyone still does, but the mother’s parts in their training cannot be over-valued]