Truth Magazine

By H. E. Phillips

Forty years ago there was no serious thought of women being appointed to be elders and deacons in the Lord’s church. With the birth of the Feminist Movement, conceived in the “civil rights” legislation under the influence of radical humanism among political activists, came the demand for women’s “equal rights” and power in every area of life. It was inevitable that this movement would invade the home, school and church, with painful social, economic and political punishment for any opposition. The militant voice of the National Organization of Women is demanding that women be elevated to equal rank with men in every area of life, including the church. Out of this influence comes the demand for leadership roles for women in churches of Christ.

This feminist movement is riding the high wave of liberal political influence and crying for the abolition of “the yoke of male domination” in religion and allow women to claim their rightful role of authority in churches. This organization promotes and supports abortion; it also supports lesbian and homosexual activity and has ridiculed traditional family relationships and the role of mother-hood.

The innovations in denominationalism will eventually be embraced in some form by some churches of church, and some of these have included women preachers and church leaders for several years. Now some churches of Christ are trying to imitate the practice. They reject those passages that speak of the woman being in subjection to man as the prejudice of Jewish religious leaders against women, such as the apostle Paul.

The news media and religious journals report the growing conflict in various religious denominations over women taking positions of authority in their churches. When the Scriptures are abandoned as the complete and only standard of authority, it is expected, among other things, that the women “rights” in the oversight of the church will be zealously promoted.

Promotion of Women Into The Oversight of the Church

Some women have demanded and received permission to attend the “business meetings” of the men in the absence of elders. They first wanted to attend to listen and be informed. Then they began to participate by asking and answering questions and to present their points of view. They soon occupied roles of leadership in these “business meetings” of making decisions. The women who participate in business meetings violate the woman’s role given in 1 Timothy 2:12 just as if she participated in an elders meeting. It is a short step from this to demand “election” to the eldership and deaconship. These women do not understand their place in the church or they have no regard for the word of Christ, and the men who permit this commit sin.

However, some women are as’ tie for a voice in the decision making of the church. In scene churches women already are attending the business meetings. The New Testament does not authorize any woman to occupy any post of authority in the local church, nor is she permitted to do anything “over” the man, whether there are elders of not. This prohibits any role of oversight.

Several years ago some elders reported their intention to revise the traditional roles of women in the church. This change had to be gradual to avoid division in these churches, because most people know that the Bible does not authorize a leading role for women in the church. The gradual introduction of women into the public activity in the church was to use them for making announcements before beginning worship; this opened the door for further public leading roles. That is what I have read from reports from some elders. Then if women can make announcements, they can also be used as ushers, to lead public prayers, to read Scriptures, to lead singing and to serve the Lord’s supper.

These women will not be content with this public service, they will want to preach publicly, and to be appointed elders and deacons with equal authority of oversight with men.

What the Bible Teaches About the Role of Women in the Church

The word of God is explicit regarding the role of women in society, the home and the church. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

There is not a woman on earth who can attain the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 for one to be a bishop. “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3:1-2). She could never be the “husband of one wife.” She could never “rule well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” She is to be in subjection to her husband in every thing (Eph. 5:24).

If we abandon the Scriptures regarding woman’s place in the church, it really does not matter what we do after that. To go beyond the word of God is to sin and leave God (2 John 9).

A woman is required to do everything that a man does in becoming a Christian (hear, believe, repent, confess Christ, be baptized). She must do everything a man does in worship to God (pray, sing, study the word, take Lord’s supper, give of her prosperity on first day). She can scripturally do anything a man can do as a Christian, except she may not do so “over the man”; to take the authority of a man. She is to be in subjection (I Tim. 2:11). The head of woman is man (1 Cor. 11:3); the head of the wife is the husband, and she is to be in subjection to him in all things (Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Men and women are equal in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), but they are not equal in their role assignments. Man did not create this arrangement. God did! Man and woman cannot change it without incurring the wrath of God.

The Bible reason is: (1) God commanded that the women keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:23-35); and (2) women are to learn in silence with all subjection (1 Tim. 2:11). The reason she is to be in subjection is: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13,14). As long as the world stands those words will be there with the same force as when delivered by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:23, 25; Matt. 24:35).

Christ did not select a woman to be among the apostles, elders or evangelists in the New Testament church. Women are not permitted to do the work of an evangelist.

Godly women in New Testament days had an important role in the work of the Lord, but it was never “over the man” or in the role of oversight. Dorcas assisted the needy (Acts 9:36). Priscilla and her husband taught a young preacher more perfectly the right way (Acts 18:18). Phebe and Mary were commended for their assistance to Paul in the gospel (Rom. 16:1,6). Paul said, “Help those women who labored with me in the gospel” (Phil. 4:3).

I have been greatly blessed by godly women through my life as a preacher, from my grandmother, mother, wife, daughters, granddaughters and many other faithful women of great influence. They have taught me and encouraged me in many ways. These valuable saints are indispensable to the strength and growth of the local church. But the truth remains, the Lord did not put them in places of leadership. Women were not to occupy roles of leadership and over-sight in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 14-15
February 2, 1995

By  Connie W. Adams

Can a woman preach? Obviously she can for there are many now who do. To preach means to proclaim, to herald a message. Can a woman do that? Yes she can. Really what concerns us at the present hour is may a woman preach? That gets to the heart of the issue of divine authority. Is such activity on her part approved by God in his word? To that question, we answer emphatically, no.

While other writers will deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, I must press it into service here for it settles the question for all who respect the word of God. “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Paul gave two reasons for that: (1) Adam was first formed, and (2) the woman was deceived in the transgression (vv. 13-14). In the wake of the transgression, God said to Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). In the light of these simple statements, how say some that it is permissible for a woman to preach? Paul said, “I do not permit” it.

I have been asked to address some of the arguments made in defense of women preaching.

“Men and Women Have Equal Ability to Preach”

Some women are more expressive than some men. That cannot be denied. But the issue is not equal ability. It involves the roles which God assigned to men and women in the church. Can you name one woman in the church in the New Testament who preached? This boils down to an argument about the use made of talent. I have heard the same argument used to justify instrumental music in worship. “God gave me this talent and I ought to use it to glorify him.” But people are capable of doing many things which God did not authorize in his word.

“Paul Was Prejudiced Against Women”

This argument has been made not only to escape the force of what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 but also to nullify what he taught in Ephesians 5:22-25 about the husband being the head of the wife and what he wrote in Titus 2:4-5 about women being “obedient” to their husbands. It is held that Paul was an old bachelor, obviously biased against women and that what he wrote was motivated by the chauvinism of the times in which he lived. Such an argument strikes at the heart of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. The Holy Spirit was to guide the apostles “into all truth” (Jn. 16:13-14). By revelation, Paul received from God the knowledge of the mystery of divine truth which he then wrote in words  “whereby when you read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:1-4). “But God revealed them unto us by his Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10). The message was given in words “which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (v. 13), so that Paul and the other apostles had “the mind of Christ” (v. 16). Then to clinch it, Paul wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was either inspired by the Holy Spirit and taught the commandments of the Lord, or else he lied about it. If the latter, then there is no reason to discuss the New Testament further. Yet those who seek to justify women preaching would have us to believe the practice is taught in the New Testament. It cannot be both ways.

“We Must Make Our Practice Relevant to the Times”

Ah, now we are getting to it. This strikes at the all-sufficiency of the word of God to meet every need in the church for as long as the world stands. This all springs from the notion that the word of God is out of date and out of touch with the demands of modem life. What an insult to God! The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Perverting it is wrong (Gal. 1:8-9). “Going onward” is wrong (2 In. 9-11). Adding to it or subtracting from it is wrong (Rev. 22:18-19). It furnishes us to every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We are equipped with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The New Testament is all-sufficient to guide the church and in that delivered faith the Holy Spirit guided Paul to write, “I permit not a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be silence.”

“There Were Women Who Could Prophesy”

Joel had written “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” and Peter quoted that on Pentecost in Acts 2:17). Early in the New Testament we are introduced to Anna, a prophetess. Phillip the evangelist had four virgin daughters “which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). From 1 Corinthians 11:5 we learn of women who “prayed and prophesied.” Men were to do this with their heads uncovered and women who exercised such gifts were to cover their heads when they did so as a sign of subjection. But I know from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 that they could not do this in a situation where they exercised authority over men. That means then that they must do such things as they instructed other women and in a context removed from a mixed public assembly. Paul took great care to protect the chain of authority which he detailed in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Headship was not to be despised. Also, it needs to be remembered that prophesying was not simply teaching. It was inspired teaching. We have none, men or women, who can prophesy today for these gifts have ceased and the argument for women preachers based on this collapses.

“What If the Men Authorize Women to Preach?”

This contends that if men give their permission, then it would be all right. I doubt that argument will please those who are tainted with feminism. They would see that as too demeaning, to think that men had to grant it. But be that as it may, God does not give man the right, ever, to permit what the Holy Spirit said he did not permit. That is equal to saying 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids it but I do permit it. What group of elders, deacons, preachers or other men have grown so large that they can say they permit the very thing the Holy Spirit guided an apostle to write and say he did not permit?

Pentecostal churches have had women preachers a long time. This has gradually spread to the mainline denominations and now it is not uncommon to find women filling pulpits while others are studying in seminaries preparing for this work. The Catholic Church is faced with a possible rebellion from American Catholics over women in the priesthood. Not to be outdone, some in the more liberal Churches of Christ have begun to beat the drums for a changing role for women in the church. One preacher spoke on the Texas college lectureship and reported hearing a sister address a mixed crowd of about 1,000 and said, “she was dynamite.” Evidently, he approved. Such magazines as Image and Wineskins have called for a reassessment of this matter while other journals have opposed any trend in that direction. Who could deny that the increasing clamor for leadership roles from women in the church parallels the agenda of the Feminist Movement?

The God-ordained roles of both men and women in the church, the home and society are in the best interest of all concerned. The upsetting of those roles has led to disaster in the home, in society and bids to do the same in the church. The whole matter must be settled by a “thus saith the Lord.” And what he said through Paul is “I do not permit” it. We can quibble about it from here on out. We can rationalize it, minimize it, philosophize about it, ridicule it, or attempt to simply ignore it. When we get through with all of that, the New Testament will still say the same thing about it. It is that by which we shall all be judged in the last day.

May a woman preach? No, she may not and still please God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 12-13
February 2, 1995

By Daniel H. King Sr.

The prophet Jeremiah’s life and the unique experiences which he had with Israel, offered him a “laboratory” to study the workings of the human heart. God had entrusted him with a message of dismay, desolation, and destruction for the land of Israel and the people of God. And there was no turning the judgment back. Its realization was inevitable. But the people to whom he spoke did not wish to hear such bad news. They felt secure in their actions and believed that God would bless them and protect them from their enemies. The Lord predicted otherwise, however. In one particularly brutal revelation to Jeremiah, God forbade him from marrying or fathering children, with these chilling words:

The word of Jehovah came also unto me, saying, Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters, in this place. For thus saith Jehovah concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them, and concerning their fathers that begat them in this ]and: They shall die grievous deaths: they shall not be lamented, neither shall they be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the ground; and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the heavens, and for the beasts of the earth. For thus saith Jehovah, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament, neither bemoan them; for I have taken away my peace from this people, saith Jehovah, even loving kindness and tender mercies (Jer. 16:1-5).

The Lord warned the prophet that when it was all over they would turn to him and ask why all this evil had come upon them, whereupon he was to tell them that “ye have done evil more than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the stubbornness of his evil heart, so that ye hearken not unto me” (Jer. 16:12). Their hearts had become evil and depraved, so their actions were also evil and depraved, and God could do nothing except to judge them for their rebellion.

At the end of the day, the Lord through his Spirit gave the great insight into the human psyche which explains Israel’s stubborn resistance to the oft-repeated divine appeals for her repentance:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? (Jer. 17:9)

This verse explains how, even though the Almighty was fed up with Israel’s flagrant disregard for her covenant with him, she was able to convince herself that no harm would come her way. But this profound text does more than that. It shows us how our own minds can work to rob us of God grace and send us careening blindly down the road that leads to spiritual death. Here is what it says:

1. The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things. Jeremiah had seen plenty of evidence to confirm the Lord’s pronouncement about this. The hardness and deceitfulness of the people’s heart in his time kept them from yielding to the Lord’s will. It kept them from turning from their sin. And, it convinced them that all was well when certain death lay just over the horizon.

Today many folks try to look inward for their insights into life and even for their knowledge of God. Several of the religious traditions of our time tell us this is where genuine knowledge of God is to be found. The Bible is foursquare against this notion. Dependable knowledge about God or even of ourselves cannot be discovered by looking within. The Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things. It is not a dependable guide in such matters. The heart is influenced by things like the deceitfulness of riches (Matt. 113:22), the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13), the deceitfulness of lust (Eph. 4:22). Scripture says that a deceitful witness speaks lies and not the truth (Prov. 14:25). The human heart it such a witness. It cannot be trusted for spiritual guidance. Our guidance must come from outside of ourselves. That is where biblical revelation enters the picture. God’s revelation of himself and of his will for man in the Bible is essential precisely because of the deceitfulness of the heart. The word of God acts as a constant check against the cunning and devious ways of the heart.

2. The Heart Is Exceedingly Corrupt. This word means “morally degenerate, perverted, depraved.” The prophet had beheld the depravity of his own generation to the extent that he did not plead for mercy upon them, but only asked that he with his own eyes might see God’s judgment performed upon them: “Let me see thy vengeance on them…” (20:12). In our day we have seen the likes of the Boston Strangler, the Son of Sam, Charles Manson and his “Family,” Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. These people, and a host of others like them that we could also mention, illustrate how “exceedingly corrupt” the heart of man can become. That which is capable of such degeneracy, perversion and depravity, could never be viewed as a dependable source for human guidance. As the prophet elsewhere said: “0 Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

3. Who Can Know It? The world we live in is filled with mysteries. There are so very many things which we do not understand and cannot comprehend. God’s word concludes this set of observations about the duplicity of the human heart with this question: “Who can know it?” Of course, it is immediately understood that God knows the heart (see verse 10), else he could not speak so authoritatively about the evils which lurk within it. As David advised his son, “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for Jehovah searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever” (1 Chronicles 28:9). The point is, that one cannot know the goings-on within the mind of another man, nor if he permits himself to be deceived by his own ambitions, lusts and desires, can he even claim to comprehend his own mind. Thus, the Bible instructs us to “keep the heart with all diligence” (Prov. 4:23).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 22-23
January 19, 1995

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