Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The influence of the feminist movement has caused many Christians to become confused about the respective roles of men and women in every relationship of a society: business, politics, family, church, etc. Constantly we are being bombarded with feminist role models that have little resemblance to what is revealed in the Bible or even to the society we knew as children. We face the temptation of being conformed to this world with respect to the role of women.

For the past 40 years, women have been subjected to a methodical assault that redefines their roles in society. They have been taught that one cannot find self-fulfillment in her role as wife and mother. To reach full human potential, a woman should enter the labor force. She should have no regrets for placing her children in state run day-care centers. Marriages need to be egalitarian, with husband and wife sharing 50-50 the decision-making responsibilities. Furthermore, women should be willing to leave repressive marriages that interfere with reaching their full potential in order to find self-fulfillment. As this feminist movement has gained momentum in our country, it has achieved significant social status and political clout. Feminists have advisory personnel who go over the textbooks that our children use in school to be sure that feminist role models are displayed. They influence the appointment of justices on the Supreme Court. In a word, the feminist movement has significant political clout that is influencing us in ways of which we may not be aware. Our wives and girls are affected by the feminist movement.

The Value of the Old Testament

There are several reasons for us to consult what the Old Testament tells us about the role of women. Consider these with me:

1. Creation shows us God’s original design for male and female. Even as Jesus went back to creation to teach about marriage, we should be able to learn from creation God’s original design for male and female roles.

2. The Old Testament is God’s revelation to man. God reveals to us in the Old and New Testaments the “way of life,” principles that have always been true.

3. It reflects history over many centuries and cultures. The Old Testament revelation covers the history of man from his creation to about 400 B.C. The records shows us glimpses of male and female role relations from various cultures of different nations over several millennia of history. This helps us to transcend our own brief cultural milieu to have a broader understanding of the subject.

4. The New Covenant did not change male and female roles. I find nothing that the gospel changed in the roles of male and female. Hence, the Old Testament’s teaching on this subject is just as important for us as it was for Old Testament saints.

Accepting that this is so, we now turn to learn what the Old Testament reveals about male and female roles.

The Creation Model

1. God created both male and female in his image (Gen.1:26). This is the basis for equality between the sexes. Because both are created in the image of God, we can become heirs together of life (1 Pet. 3:7). The statement of Genesis 1:27 is as follows:

So God created man in his own image, In the image of God created he him; Male and female created he them.

Three things are asserted about creation: (1) God created man  we came from God; (b) We bear a resemblance to God; (c) We are male and female  both male and female created by God and bearing his resemblance. The equality of male and female is also reflected in the statement in Genesis 1:26  “let them have dominion” over his creation.

2. Male and female roles were a result of creation. God did not create Adam and Eve simultaneously. The Genesis record reveals that God created man and placed him in the Garden. One of the responsibilities given to him was to name the animals of the field. As each animal passed before him, Adam gave it a name suitable to what it was. In naming the animals, Adam recognized that there was no companion suited to him. God used this manner to develop Adam’s recognition of his need for a mate. To meet the need, God created Eve, but not in the same manner as he created man from the dust of the earth. He caused a deep sleep to come on Adam. Then he took from his side a rib and from that he made woman. When God brought her to Adam, he saw for the first time that person fitted to be his companion and equal. As he saw his wife in her pristine beauty, he exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23).

Paul argues that man is the “glory of God” and woman is the “glory of the man” (1 Cor. 11:7). This does not state that woman is not made in the “image of God.” Rather, what it is emphasizing is that woman’s glory is tied to her husband. If he is a king, she is a queen; if he is poor, so is she. She reflects the station of her husband in life.

“Male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). From creation, certain roles were fixed. Only Eve could conceive and give birth to a child. Only Eve could nurse a child. Because of these God-created physical differences, Eve’s role as a mother to her children was fixed forever by God. Because of the physical differences related to her monthly cycle and physical make-up (smaller and less muscular form), differences in role responsibility were inevitable. They were God-created differences.

3. Male headship over the home was present at creation. This is seen by the following evidences: (a) order of creation. Paul argues from the order of creation for the headship of man on two occasions. He said,

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:3,8-9).

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-13).

Any effort to re-interpret these verses to deny male headship leads to a denial of the inspiration of the Bible. This is inspired commentary on inspired verses. Clark Pinnock described efforts to re-interpret such passages to coincide with feminist theology as “hermeneutical ventriloquism” (“Biblical Authority & the Issues in Question,” Women, Authority & the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, editor, 57). Roland M. Frye analyzed the movement correctly when he wrote,

When we (whoever we may be) say of a biblical expression that “we have trouble with that language,” we may merely be expressing our human limitations, but if we then proceed to change it to a more agreeable sense, we are subjecting the authority of Scripture to the authority of our tastes and biases. Efforts to “alter the thoughts, intention, and language of the Bible are a covert but nonetheless destructive repudiation of the authority of the Bible over the church,” as Paul S. Minear says about recommendations to change scriptural metaphors for God into the feminine gender. The problem, as he defines it, is that “when we change what the Bible does say to what we think it should say, it becomes a dummy for our own thought  and no dummy exercises authority over the ventriloquist (“Language for God and Feminist Language,” Speaking the Christian God, Alvin F. Kimel, Jr., editor, 32-33).

(b) Referring to the human race as “mankind.” The word adam is used not only for the name of the first created man, but also for mankind. God did not name the race “womankind.”

(c) Adam held accountable when sin occurred in the garden. Genesis 3 records Adam and Eve’s sin. Eve was deceived by the Devil and ate of the forbidden fruit. She then persuaded her husband to eat with her, even though he was not deceived (see 1 Tim. 2:15). When God approached them in the Garden, he called to Adam and said, “Where art thou?” (Gen. 3:9) Why was he calling Adam to account when Eve was the first to sin? Because Adam, as head of his family, was held responsible for what was done.

(d) Adam charged with sin for following Eve’s leader-ship (Gen. 3:17). He was the one responsible for leading the family but he shirked his duty when he allowed Eve to step outside her submissive role as wife and lead the family.

4. Role responsibilities are reflected in the punishment given after the fall. Role relationships were not created at the fall, but were affected by the fall. To man God gave primary responsibility to earn a living. Although Adam worked before the fall (see Gen. 2:15), his labor in earning a living was made more difficult as a result of the fall.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Gen. 3:17-19).

Man’s role in the family is that of provider. In a similar way, we see the role of Eve from the curse that came to her: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (Gen. 3:16). Again, Eve’s role as mother was not created after the fall but was made more difficult as a result of the fall.

5. Eve’s subjection to Adam was specifically mentioned as a result of the fall. God told Eve, “He shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). Many commentators believe that this means that in ruling over women, men would become domineering and abusive in their treatment, not that this was the beginning of woman’s subordination to man. The statement may be God’s reaffirmation of woman’s need for leadership, a vital principle violated by her sin.

Creation reveals distinctive role models for man and woman, with male headship over the home.

Other Evidences of Gender Roles

1. The Law of Moses forbade things that obscured the gender relationships. “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Kell and Delitzsch commented, “The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices. . .; but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction  such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman  was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God” (409-410).

2. Various laws in the Mosaical code distinguish men and women. (a) There was a difference in the law of purification for male and female babies (Lev. 12:1-8). (b) Inheritance passed through males instead of females. A special law was provided for a man who had only daughters so that his inheritance could be passed to his daughters under the stipulation that they marry someone in their own tribe (Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12). The law of levirate marriage was related to the passing of the inheritance through the males (Deut. 25:5-10). (c) A female was redeemed from a vow at a different price than a male (Lev. 27:3-4).

3. The role of the male in the family shows gender roles. The man of the house was to do the following: (a) Lead the family as its head; (b) Provide for the family. If a man chose to take a second wife, the provisions of food, raiment, and the (sexual) duty of marriage for the first wife were not to be diminished (Exod. 21:10). (c) Protect the family.

4. The description of the virtuous woman shows gender roles (Prov. 31:10-31).The woman prepares food for the family, sews, helps in the fields, sells the merchandise she has made, etc. Her husband is “known in the gates,” for apparently this was not the woman’s place; it was the male’s role to sit with the elders of the land to make decisions for the people.

Other Evidences of Male Headship

1. Sarah called Abraham “lord” (Gen.] 8:6;1 Pet.3:6). The husband was frequently called the baal (see Exod. 21:22; Deut. 22:22; etc.). The word baal means “to be lord or master over any thing, to have dominion over, to possess.” Because of the role of the husband as the “master” or “lord,” the word came to mean “to become the husband of any one, to marry a wife.” The husband is called the “master of the house” (Exod. 22:8).

2. The nakedness of the wife was described to the son as “thy father’s nakedness” because of the rights of cohabitation (Lev. 18:8, 16; 20:11, 20-21).

3. A woman’s vow to the Lord was not binding unless it was accepted by her husband as binding (Num. 30:6-8).

4. The instructions regarding divorce presuppose man’s headship over the home. The man “sends her out of the house” and the woman “departs” from the home (Deut. 24:1-2) because he, as the head over the home, has authority over it.

5. The book of Esther records the removal of Vashti as queen because she rebelled against her husband’s authority. While one cannot defend Ahasuerus’ conduct, the inspired record certainly demonstrates that man was the head of his home. When Vashti was removed as queen, an edict was sent throughout the 127 provinces of Persia that women should honor their husbands and “that every man should bear rule in his own house” (Esth. 1:20, 22). The king’s abuse of his role does not mitigate against the validity of the role itself.

Women Who Usurped Authority

1. Miriam’s sin (Num. 12:1-16). Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses’ leadership of Israel because he had married an Ethiopian. That Miriam took the lead in the rebellion is seen by the order of the names (Miriam and Aaron) and the punishment of leprosy being given to her alone. They said, “Hath he not spoken also by us?” Because she had received revelation from the Lord, Miriam usurped authority by rebelling against Moses’ leadership. God punished Miriam with leprosy.

2. Jezebel. Ahab, king of Israel, married the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians (1 Kings 16:31). The. domineering spirit of this woman was manifest in many ways. She stirred up Ahab to commit idolatry (1 Kings 21:25). She cut off the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4). She publicly swore that Elijah would be put to death because of his role in destroying the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 19:2). She plotted and commanded the execution of Naboth in order to give Ahab a vineyard he wanted (1 Kings 21). This wicked woman dominated and manipulated her husband.

3. Athaliah. Jehoram of Judah married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Kings 8:16-18). Athaliah’s son Ahaziah was killed after ruling only one year. When her son died, she slew all the others who had a claim to the throne and usurped the throne of Judah for herself (2 Kings 11). She had learned her dominating ways from her mother. She was slain when Jehoiada was able to re-instate the Davidic dynasty by putting Joash on the throne.

4. Maachah. The mother of Abijam of Judah was finally removed as “queen mother” because she introduced idolatry into the land (1 Kings 15:13).

Woman’s Role in Worship

During the Patriarchal Age, the father took the lead in offering worship (Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4, 18; 22:9; 26:25; etc.). There is no evidence of a woman ever building an altar to Jehovah and offering a sacrifice on it. The only examples of women offering sacrifices are related to pagan worship (see below).

When the Levitical worship was instituted, strict requirements were given for those who could serve as priests from the family of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. The other male Levites were to assist at the Tabernacle and later in the Temple. However, women could not serve as high priest, priest, or Levite assistant in the worship. They were allowed to participate in the choirs in the Temple (Ps. 68:25; Ezra 2:65; Neh. 7:67).

There are six references to prophetesses in the Old Testament. Miriam is called a prophetess when she led other women in celebrating the deliverance at the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20). Deborah was called a prophetess (Judg. 4:4). She was chosen to lead Israel against the Canaanites. She recognized that hers was an unusual role and insisted that Barak lead the battle (Judg. 4). Huldah prophesied the word of the Lord when Josiah’s servants found the Law that had been lost in the Temple (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22). Nehemiah referred to a prophetess named Noadiah (Neh. 6:14). The wife of Isaiah is called a prophetess (Isa. 8:3). W.F. Adeney comments, “It is manifest that the appearance of a prophetess in Israel was quite exceptional” (“Woman,” Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, editor). To use the exceptional cases to justify leadership roles for women, such as serving as elders, deacons, preachers, leading singing, making announcements, and such like things, would be misuse of the Old Testament references.

Women’s Role in Pagan Religions

Revealed and unrevealed religion can be distinguished in respect to the roles of women. In pagan religions, the deity worshiped was sometimes feminine (Ishtar of Babylon, Astareth who was the consort of the Canaanite god Baal). In some of the pagan religions, the women became sacred prostitutes. Consequently, there was a connection between idolatry and fornication (cf. Exod. 32:6, 19, 25). In pagan religions, women served as priestesses, witches, and sorceresses. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939) summarizes as follows:

Often woman’s religious intensity found expression in idolatry and the gross cults of heathenism. That she everywhere participated freely in the religious rites and customs of her people is evident from the fact that women were often priestesses, and were often deified. The other Sem(itic) religions had female deities corresponding to the goddesses of Greece and Rome. In the cult of Ishtar of Babylon women were connected with the immoral rites of temple-worship (V:3101).

Jeremiah condemned the women who made cakes to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to other gods (7:18). Ezekiel described the women who were “weeping for Tammuz” in the Lord’s temple (8:14). The Mosaic law demanded that witches be put to death (Exod. 22:18; cf. Saul’s going to the witch of Endor, I Sam. 28:7-14).

The modem feminist movement revived pagan concepts of God with its inclusive language for God. The inclusive-language movement steers away from masculine terms for God (Father, Son, etc.). God is sometimes referred to as her or she. Some of the feminist concepts state that God “has brought us forth from the womb of your being”  a feminist god giving birth to the created world. If the feminine god gave birth to the world, the world itself must share deity’s substance. This is pantheism. Some liturgies have been developed by biblical feminists to celebrate menustration, menopause, and other changes in women’s lives that manifest a true relationship with “the Great Goddess that sustains our life in nature.” This is a return to the pagan world view. The feminists have found god within and that they themselves are divine. They may choose to worship god under the feminine term “Sophia.” We must identify this as a reversion to pagan religion and not a higher evolutionary development of the Christian religion. Indeed, many feminists have abandoned Christianity altogether because it denigrates women. (A good discussion of the inclusive language movement is found in Speaking the Christian God, edited by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr.)

Conclusion

Having surveyed the Old Testament about the role of women, these conclusions about the roles of women in our modern society seem to follow:

1. A woman can find fulfillment in her role as wife and mother. The feminist movement has deceived our mothers and daughters when it teaches them that they can never find true fulfillment unless they develop a career and place their children in the day care center.

2. A mother should not sacrifice the welfare of her children on the altar of her pursuit of self-fulfillment. The biblical depiction of a godly woman shows a mother devoted to her children, not a woman who views her child as someone who is getting in the way of her having fun or reaching self-fulfillment.

3. The home should have male headship. The modem egalitarian home with husband and wife having a 50-50 share in decision making is different from the biblical norm. In escaping abusive treatment by men who have no concept of biblical headship, some are turning to egalitarian patterns for the home. Many families of my generation have accepted the egalitarian home as the ideal. Some of us have not been the leaders that our families have needed because we have seen only two options  an abusive, tyrannical, domineering husband or egalitarian homes. As a result, many us have become less than the leader God wants us to be.

4. The home will not function well when role reversals occur. There are circumstances in which a woman must take primary responsibility as provider (such as in the case of illness and injury). However, the trend to make woman equally responsible to provide for the family or the primary provider is full of danger. The person who earns the income will generally control it. There is significant danger of the woman who is a provider making the decisions for the family. A “house husband” (a man who makes a choice to stay at home and keep up the house while his wife pursues a secular career) is not likely to be the head of his house.

Many women are trying to juggle two full-time jobs  their secular jobs and that of mother. They cannot long endure as “super moms.” What usually happens is that many of those tasks that mothers have historically provided are neglected. Mothers have little time to practice hospitality, volunteer to teach a Bible class, clean the building, prepare communion, visit the sick and shut-ins, and other spiritual works in which women have historically taken the lead because of the encroachment the job has on their time. Working moms have little time to study Bible lessons with their children, so many have children who come to Bible classes unprepared.

Many parents already are reconsidering whether the extra things that a second income can provide are worth what it costs the family. Perhaps more should do the same.

5. Women should not take a leadership role in the church. This is discussed in more detail in other verses, but the Old Testament certainly supports the concept of male leadership in spiritual matters. Even as the male served as priests and Levites assistants, so also should leadership positions in the church be filled by males.

In conclusion, I cannot improve upon Paul’s summation of what the Old Testament teaches about the role of women: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law”

(1 Cor. 14:34). The Old Testament teaches that women are to be “under obedience,” not taking leadership roles in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 2
February 2, 1995

By Lindsay Allen

Yes, I am aware that orphan homes and instrumental music have little if anything in common. They are coupled together in this article in order to teach a lesson with as much clarity and simplicity as possible.

Our brethren who endorse the use of money from the church treasury to support institutional orphan homes are opposed to instrumental music in worship. In support of their position they readily cite Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and other passages of Scripture as authority. I could not agree more. When one stands on a thus saith the Lord, there is no controversy. Those who handle the word of God honestly know that God has authorized only vocal music in the worship of the church. Those who bring in instruments of music are guilty of rebelling against divine authority.

Now, with the music question scripturally settled, what about church support of orphan homes? That question must be scripturally settled as the music question and every other issue concerning the work and worship of the church. Where is Scripture for the Lord’s church to support out of its treasury orphan homes, or any other secular institution? Has God placed orphan care on the church? If so where is the Scripture? Surely, God is as much concerned with the care of orphans as he is with the kind of music in church worship? Yes, God has always championed the cause of widows and the fatherless. The Old Testament is replete with God’s care for the widows and the fatherless. “Do not remove the ancient landmark, nor enter the fields of the fatherless; for their Redeemer is mighty; He will plead their cause against you” (Prov. 23:10,11). God is as interested in the fatherless and widows in the Christian age as in any other age.

But to whom has he entrusted their care? Let the Holy Spirit answer. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: To visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). This is the only reference in the New Testament on the care of orphans and it is addressed, not to the church but to individual Christians. It is clear and definite as Ephesians 5:19 and/or Colossians 3:16 on church music.

James 1:27 excludes the church or any other organization through which the church might operate just as Ephesians 5:19 excludes the instrument. If God had in-tended for the church to use instrumental music in worship he would have so specified. Likewise if God had intended for the church to care for orphans he would have so specified. Brethren, let us be satisfied with God’s arrangement. Those who reach out with their own means to care for orphans, or help others in need not only bless those in need but are blessed themselves. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Nothing takes the place of personal involvement in the Lord’s work. Helping others bear their burdens helps to build one’s character for eternity.

Finally, to all Christians, a timely warning. There must be more than mere words in the Lord’s work. James’ warning is timely, “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). Words apart from deeds are futile. It is easy to become negligent about our duties to orphans and others in need. There is no better incentive to diligent and faithful service in these things than the parable of judgment in Matthew 25:31-46. Brethren, may all of us be faithful stewards of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 23
January 19, 1995

By T. Doy Moyer

1 Corinthians 11 has been surrounded by controversy due to the teaching about the covering. It is not the purpose or scope of this article to try to expound a pro or con position on the covering today. Women do need to carefully study the passage for themselves and make thought-out decisions as to what they will practice. It is certainly not a passage that can be overlooked without serious consideration. This article will focus more on the role of women as taught in verse 3. The wearing of the covering for the women when praying or prophesying was to demonstrate their submissive position. It is the submissive role itself that we want to briefly consider.

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

In the midst of the problems that the Corinthians were having, it appears that they also had a problem with order among men and women. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 indicates problems even within the assembly with women inappropriately addressing the assembly or interrupting with questions. This violated their given role to “quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness” (1 Tim. 2:11). Even women with prophetic abilities were not to violate their submissive position to take the lead over men. The apostle is very explicit in the order given. We no more have a right to change this order around than we do to change around the order of what is required for salvation.

Stepping Out of the Role

Terrible consequences come when we step out of our given roles. A woman who did not wear a covering within this context disgraced her head (v. 5). She was “one and the same with her whose head is shaved,” something they would have understood to be a great disgrace to women. Women who think that they are demonstrating their “independence” and acting in their own self-interests when they reject God-given submissive roles are, in reality, disgracing themselves. It is no great dignity for a women to try to take the headship away from the man. She does not “fulfill her potential” when she usurps authority over men. She was not created to lead man. Thus, when she attempts to do so, she greatly harms her divine station in life. Contrary to popular opinion, the role of the woman as shown in Scripture is not a shameful position to be in. In fact, it is a position of honor and esteem. For example, to hear people degrade women who stay home to raise their children is distasteful to a mind thinking on godly values. Rather, we need to realize what a great honor it is for a woman to be in the position in which God has put her (cf. Tit. 2:4-5).

Verse 9 teaches that woman was created “for the man,” as Genesis teaches. She was made to be a complement to the man, not a hindrance. Feminism, which in essence seeks to break all ties with “man,” has hurt, perhaps more than any movement, the honor and glory that rightly belongs to a woman who gracefully submits to the will of God (cf. 31:10-31). She was created to be a companion and helper, not a threat and challenge to the man.

One of the reasons given in I Corinthians 11 for women to wear the covering was “because of the angels” (v. 10). Since the covering was a sign of “authority” (i.e., it symbolizes the authority to which she submits), her not wearing one when praying or prophesying, indicated that she was stepping out of her required role. She needed to think of angels. This is not because they were looking down on her to see what she was doing. It seems more likely that this is referring to the “angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode” (Jude 6). As a result, they were “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (cf. also 2 Pet. 2:4). In other words, he was telling the women to think about what happened to the angels who stepped out of their assigned positions before you think of removing the sign of authority which shows your submission. Keeping our proper places is essential according to the word of God.

Men and women are dependent upon each other (v. 11). Therefore, it is vital for us to recognize our proper places and stay there. The battle existing between men and women is only further aggravated when we try to reverse or ignore the roles. Even “nature” teaches a difference between men and women (vv. 14-15). It is a tremendous curse on our society that these differences are not respected as they should be. When men look and act like women, and women look and act like men, we are shamed and reproached.

Meaning of Head

The word head (keyhole) refers to “that which is upper-most in relation to something” (Zodhiates 860). When used of persons, it is “the head, chief, one to whom others are subordinate” (Ibid.). “In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank” (Bauer 430). “A figurative extension . . . one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command  `one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over” (Louw & Nida 739). When it says that “man is the head of woman,” it is saying that, in terms of authority, man has the higher position. This clearly puts man in the leadership position. For a woman to resent this and attempt to step out of her role is to disrespect God. This is not the result of some male-dominated society and chauvinistic apostle. This is the inspired teaching of God, and it must be respected.

One question that arises is whether or not this is speaking only of the husband and wife relationship. Some women will say that the only man they have to submit to is the husband. However, there is nothing in this context limiting the relationship to only husbands and wives. It says, “man is the head of woman.” If “man” here is “husbands only,” then does it also mean “husbands only” when it says “Christ is the head of every man”? If “every man” extends beyond husbands, then on what grounds does it become “husbands only” within the very same sentence? The general relationship is that man has authority over the woman. This is exactly what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 teaches. This does not mean that a man has a right to enter another man’s home and boss that man’s wife around. It does not mean that men generally can “command” women to be at their “beck and call.” It simply means that God has placed man in the leadership role, and women are to follow this lead, not attempting to usurp authority over men.

A second question over this verse comes with the word “head” itself. some are teaching that the word “head” means “source,” and does not refer to authority. What is the point of defining the word this way? If it is to say that man does not have the position of authority, there are many other passages to be reckoned with. Furthermore, if “head” means “source,” and refers tot he creation, then what does it mean when it says, “God is head of Christ”? Does it mean that somehow Jesus was created? The same word is used in referring to the husband and wife relationship in Ephesians 5:23. Is the husband the “source” of the wife? Defining the word this way creates more problems than it solves. The idea of “head” is clearly authority.

The Nature of the Authority

Men need to understand the nature of their authority. Is 1 Corinthians 11:3 describing a relationship where man has tyrannical rule over the woman? Not at all. Man does not have a right to force a woman into submission or dangle it over her head to get his own way. This is contrary to the teachings of Christ and the example that he himself left for us (cf. Phil. 2:3-8). A man is overstepping his bounds if he acts this way; and, to be sure, plenty of men have done this. Nor is this passage saying that man is better than woman. A man is no more human or godly than a woman is. This is simply an order of authority that God has put into effect. The nature of this authority is loving, considerate and decisive, just as God has demonstrated toward us. It does not give man a right to “lord it over” women (cf. Matt. 20:25-28).

Consider the relationship between Jesus and the Father. The Bible teaches that Jesus himself is God, equal in nature to the Father (Jn. I:1; 5:17-24; 10:30; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1; etc.). Even so, Jesus took on a role of submission under the Father. This did not change his equality in nature; he simply acted in a different capacity than the Father. Like-wise, men and women are equal in terms of human nature. But God has given them different roles. This does not mean one is more or less important than the other. Both roles are vital for the proper functioning of society, the home and the church. We must respect God’s order. Man is to be the leader. He should respect the woman and try to make it pleasant for her to follow his example. The woman is respectfully to submit to the lead of the man.

In the church, men are to be leaders. Modem thinking has opened the door for women to take major leading roles in churches (i.e., preachers and “elders”). We will find real trouble very soon if the truth is not taught and upheld in this age. Though the biblical teaching about the roles of men and women is despised by the modem worldview, our efforts as Christians must be to please God (cf. Gal. 1:10). To place women in positions of equal authority to men in the church is to violate the Scriptures. Feminism has no place in the church of God. Our thinking on this matter needs to be dictated by God, not by political correctness.

Men need to be leaders in the home. Some men relinquish their responsibilities to the wives  some let their wives take over. Either way, God’s order has been violated. Men need to wake up to their obligations and lovingly lead their families in the ways of God. Unless the home reflects the godly order of leadership, the church and society both will suffer.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that 1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that men are in the position of leadership, and women have the role of submission. A man’s attitude should be, as Christ, to be a loving leader, providing a good example and godly spirit. A woman’s attitude should be that she willingly submits and follows the lead. Man is not to put her in submission, and woman is not to despise submission. When God’s way is respected, the home, the church and the nation will prosper. Let us therefore seek to fulfill the will of God even against the prevailing backdrop of feminism today. It matters not what “they” say. Only what God says matters.

References

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New

York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Zohiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, Inc. 1992.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 3-5
February 2, 1995

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Belinda, a fine young Christian from Mexico, spent six weeks of last summer with my daughter’s family. Her enthusiasm, devoutness, and general spirituality were an inspiration to us all. What a delight to see one so young and so interested in so many things, yet seeming to have her priorities in order.

The first time she visited the church where my wife and I attend, I introduced her to brother Billy Norris, one of our elders. Her face almost literally lit up as she exclaimed, “I am so happy to meet you. I never met an elder before.”

Belinda is a faithful member of a small church in Mexico, where her father preaches and makes the bulk of his living doing secular work. Churches in that part of the world are very small, few, and far between  so it is understandable that she would have not had the opportunity to have “met an elder before.” Many of these churches barely have a plurality of men, much less a plurality of men qualified for the eldership. Churches can exist and be faithful to the Lord, in such circumstances, without elders overseeing them.

This incident got me to thinking. I wonder how many young Christians in our country, where there are more and larger churches, could empathize with Belinda  “I have never met an elder before.” Too many churches in areas where churches have been around for decades are without elders and the number seems to be growing all the time. Some have never had elders. Others have had but are now without them. Something is wrong.

No church should appoint elders just to say that they have elders. This does happen. A church’s having elders is contingent upon there being a plurality of qualified men who can be appointed to that work. If there is anything worse than a church without elders, it is a church with unqualified men masquerading as elders. The late J.D. Tant is reported to have said that when he was a boy he used to go into the words and cut branches off elder bushes and make pop-guns. He said the situation was later reversed  brethren were making elders out of pop-guns. I think I may have met some of those.

In a relatively short time after churches were established in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, “they (Paul and his companions) had appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Some have wondered how these men could have met the strict qualifications, outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in so short a time. Some have suggested this proves that those qualifications were not meant to be strictly observed, but were only general guidelines  because these men would not have had time to develop all of them, strictly speaking. So, rather than insisting on all the qualifications listed by Paul, we should simply appoint those who come nearest to them  the best that we have, even if they don’t have all of those traits.

Paul would not have so carefully listed the qualifications for Timothy and Titus to follow and ignored any of them when he had a part in appointing elders. Besides, it is not unreasonable to think that there could have been men in those churches with all the qualifications. All qualifications do not have to be developed after one becomes a Christian. Obviously those that are peculiar to the faith must come after conversion not a novice, holy, holding fast the faithful word, being able to teach it, and by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. If one applies himself it would not take very long to develop these.

As to other traits, one could have had them before becoming a Christian  the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy, gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, ruling his own house, etc. As to believing children, they may have been converted at the same time as their fathers were (cf. Acts 16:34; 1 Cor. 1:16).

Churches need to be paying more attention to seeking out men and helping them develop scriptural qualifications or many of our young people are going to grow up not having met an elder.

There are many reasons for the shortage of elders among long-established congregations. Individually, developing the qualifications is simply not a high priority with many men in the church. Too, their families are not as careful as they need to be to help them meet the qualifications relating to the family. Collectively, little is done to train men to be elders. Churches often have training classes to encourage men to preach or have some other “public part.” Yet, few of these classes are geared to help train men to become elders.

In some cases, churches are kept from having good elders by a perverted idealism. Some qualifications are absolute, such as being the husband of one wife and having believing children. Some are relative, such as being able to teach and hospitable.

How many of the qualifications must one have? All of them  both relative and absolute. If one has all of them he can be appointed, if he lacks just one of them he cannot be. With a relative qualification, once it is determined that one has it, then the degree to which one has it can vary greatly from person to person. We need to be careful that we do not demand perfection or even near-perfection in those relative qualifications. Nor do we need to expect all the elders to possess them to the same degree. For example, we may know (or envision) elders whose hospitality or ability to teach is extra-ordinary. They become our ideal. We then reject any prospective elders who, though some-what hospitable and able to teach, are not as much so as our ideal. Such perverted idealism keeps some churches from having elders.

Sometimes power struggles keep churches from having elders. Preachers and other members, fearful of losing some of their clout, block the appointment of elders in one way or the other. Brethren, influenced by democratic models in civil governments, civic clubs and religious organizations, have in many cases come to believe that this type of government is best for the Lord’s church. The only way they will accept elders is for them to be “figure heads” who kind of lead a democratic process in the congregation.

This process is often accompanied by base political maneuvering. No wonder many churches feel that they can get along without elders as well as with elders  if not better. When elders are appointed, they are simply appointed to allow the congregation to claim scriptural status, but are expected and allowed to have little more than a ceremonial role.

The Lord’s church is not a democracy. The Lord is the head with all authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23). In congregations, the Head has decreed that elders are to rule and members are to submit (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17; Heb. 13:17). It is not majority rule. It is not minority rule. It is not dictator rule. It is not preacher rule. It is not women rule. It is elder rule.

Let brethren everywhere become more diligent in desiring the position of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1). Let churches be more attentive to helping men qualify and then be eager and willing to appoint them once they are qualified. Let wives and children become more concerned with making it possible for husbands and fathers to become elders. Let members, honor, submit to, and otherwise help elders do their work, “with joy and not with grief ” (Heb. 13:17), so that we will not lose good men who just cannot take the pressure any longer. Yes, elders are human and limited in the amount of abuse they can endure.

Let elders learn to rule well, not as “being lords over those entrusted to (them),” so brethren will be less inclined to dispense with the eldership because of its abuses. Let us all recognize that the Lord’s way is best for the church  yea, the only way to please the Lord. Then, maybe just maybe, our children and grandchildren will not be saying, “I never met an elder before.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 8-9
January 19, 1995