When the question is raised about the role
of women in the Christian faith, it already assumes that all women are fundamentally, intrinsically, and spiritually restricted in some way, and the only real question is not whether but how much. This is based on cherry-picked scripture at best, and social presumption above all. What we need to do instead is to objectively study all scriptural depictions of women in context, which must include how God deals with people in general.
The practice of reading later culture and traditions into past writings is called an anachronistic fallacy. One example is when the Early Modern English word science, which only meant general knowledge at the time, is interpreted with the modern meaning of a specific subset of knowlege involving experimentation. This is a huge problem in Bible interpretation (hermeneutics), especially in the early chapters of Genesis, particularly chapter 3.
What God originally created was very good
, but sin brought lasting corruption. Before sin there was no hierarchy between Adam and Eve, and the hierarchy that followed sin was not God’s command but rather his prediction of the result of Eve’s choice to follow the man rather than God. The long path from fall to redemption would require divine intervention at times, beginning with the Great Flood. Only then do we see God institute rudimentary human government, whose purpose was to slow the spread of sin and encourage people to seek him out (see Acts 17:26-27).
The rest of the Bible shows that whenever God does intervene, he goes against social norms (ref. 1 Cor. 1:27-29): the second- or last-born over the first, the lowly over the prominent, the weak over the strong. On the other hand, God doesn’t suddenly and drastically disrupt human society and its cultural traditions. The laws God gave to Israel through Moses set boundaries to ensure the humane treatment of slaves, women, children, and foreigners, yet this hardly means God endorsed slavery (1 Cor. 7:21), fleshly privilege (Gal. 3:28), or abuse and neglect (Ex. 22:27, Eph. 4:32).
God does not change, which we need to remember when we read passages such as 1 Sam. 16:7 or Acts 10:34. Jesus taught and showed by example how his followers must regard each other. In Mat. 20:24-28, Mark 10:45, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 22:24-27, John 13:3-8, Eph. 5:21, and Phil. 2:5-11, we see that the attitude and character of every follower of Jesus (especially those who influence or lead others) should be humble service rather than a jealous grasping for power or authority.
Knowing all this, how can any follower of Jesus desire, claim, or exercise the very lording over
scripture so clearly denounces? Whether it’s done by pastors or patriarchalists, it violates the clear, overarching principles of how we are to view and treat each other. We must bend our ways to God’s ways, not upend God’s ways to fit our ways. Our flesh is irrelevant in the Body of Christ, and none of us has authority to wield over others. So no passage of scripture can possibly say the opposite or excuse it in some situations. Rather, the appearance of some passages to contradict the clear teachings is due to our own prejudice or misunderstanding. If any interpretation causes us to restrict fellow believers for any other reason than living in sin or teaching division (of which flesh-based entitlement is one example), it is false by definition. So the debate over whether women can exercise authority is dissolved by the fact that no one but Jesus and the Apostles in scripture has spiritual authority or entitlement.
Consider how godly women are presented in the pages of the Old Testament beginning with Eve. While God said because of you and what you did
to Adam and the serpent, no such words were spoken to Eve, who was the victim of deception. God actually blessed her by promising the Savior through her seed
alone. Other notable women include:
None of these women are presented in scripture as God’s last resort, or a punishment or shame for disobedience on the part of men (see next paragraph). None are reprimanded for stepping outside of social norms. None of the credit for their achievements is given to their fathers or husbands. All are presented as noble role models; this is the only role
scripture gives them.
The one, and only one, passage that allegedly speaks of the shame of women as leaders
is Isaiah 3:12. The Hebrew (Masoretic) text is translated as Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.
. The intentional error of this rendering was exposed long ago by scholar Dr. Katharine Bushnell, but her work has largely been ignored. Here is her examination of the issue (lessons 621 and 622):
621. I think we find another case of prejudiced translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word translated children in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of the verb
to glean, abuse, practice.It is translated glean in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:21, Judges 20:45, and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as children anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word altogether is used for children, and child, in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with women.As to the word translated women: Two words, without the rabbinical vowel points, are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-shim. The first word means exactors; the one with a vowel mark under the initial letter means women. The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the word means one or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word children to match it. Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates:
As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them.622. There seems little in the context to support the translation children and women. But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the gleaners, (that is, tax-gatherers) and extortioners, they are threatened in the following language:
The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of His people, and the princes (rulers, masculine, not feminine gender) thereof for ye have eaten up the vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces of the poor?Because of this context, we believe that OPTION took the wrong turn when it decided to translate this verse as it stands in our English version; and that this translation would have had a strong showing up of its sophistries, had educated women been on the last Revision Committee. (emphasis mine)
Since it has been established that scripture does not present God as the one shaming or placing restrictions on women, then who would believe that this same God would command or even imply that women followers of Jesus should be more restricted or shamed than their Old Testament sisters? Or that God would begin to show favoritism, or break his long-standing habit of going against social norms, which as the next section will show, have been overwhelmingly patriarchal throughout history? There is no flesh-based entitlement, no exception, no fine print under Jesus’ command, Not so with you; whoever would be the greatest must be the least.
Look at some notable women as the New Testament presents them:
In all of Jesus’ interactions with women, not once did he shun then, shame them, or treat them as inferior. Not even the Apostle Paul, formerly a top Pharisee, treated women as inferior; in fact, he praised quite a few as co-workers, leaders, even apostles. Are we to believe, as some teach, that both Jesus and Paul contradicted themselves by also ordering that women treat their husbands as they would the Lord, that women must not utter a word in a worship service
(while also saying how they can prophesy!), that women cannot be apostles, ministers, teachers, or leaders of any sort? Do we see any hint in scriptre that women lack the ability, permission, or gifting to serve as fully equal members of the Body of Christ, or as spouses? The scriptural answer is a resounding no.
Just looking at one topic, science, we see in this article how women have often been snubbed, marginalized, dismissed, and outright robbed of the credit due them for their accomplishments:
Space does not permit the listing of all the women on this and other topics who have been denied justice solely because they were women, not the common competition of rivals. This hardly means that men never suffer injustice; rather, it means that women have suffered additional injustice for no other reason than their flesh.
special pleadingto make creation order a basis for authority only in one case.
flesh and boneas Adam made Eve his absolute equal. Adam focused on Eve’s similarity, not her difference.
helpmeans
a strong allyand is also used of God. There is no hint of inferiority on the part of the helper; in fact, it is the one being helped that lacks strength or ability. (Gen. 2:18)
woman. The slave woman Hagar gave God a name. (Gen. 2:23, 16:13)
feminine wilesto seduce Adam. (Gen. 3:6, 17, 1 Tim. 2:13)
helpthat Adam needed.
federal headof the human race. Scripture never gives Adam this title or anything like it, and does not say why sin is attributed to him alone. Yet consider these facts: both he and Eve ate the fruit and thus became mortal, but only Adam blamed the woman and God for his sin. While Eve is only said to have been deceived, Adam is said to have rebelled against God and dealt treacherously with Him. And if they base this
federal headbelief on the statement in Hebrews about Levi being credited with giving a tithe since he was
still in the body of his ancestorAbraham when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, they need to answer the question of why any of Abraham’s descendants needed to tithe, or how Levi could literally have existed in Abraham when a person is not created till sperm meets egg. Also, if Adam was Eve’s
federal headbefore sin, then God would not have confronted her at all but only Adam. (Hosea 6:7, Job 31:33, Heb. 7:10)
a snare has increased your sorrow and sighing; in sorrow you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, who will rule over you.Note that she was indeed snared or tricked, and also that it would be her husband, not anything he allegedly possessed, that she would desire or turn toward. And because of this she would be ruled over by him. This was in the future tense for both her desire and his rule, proving that neither previously existed. Even in the traditional rendering, the word
curseis not used with Eve as it was with Adam and the serpent; God never told Eve
Because you have done this…. And how could God increase her labor pains if she had not yet given birth? Even if she had, was birth supposed to have pain before sin? (Gen. 3:16)
a suitable helperfor Adam? And if all women are to be labeled as deceivable, then all men are to be labeled as poor leaders and rebels against God who always pass blame. And if Adam was tempted by Eve, would that not make him the weaker of the two, and all men share his weakness? To think God rewarded Adam for his rebellion and inaction, and cursed Eve for being tricked, is to turn God into Satan. And again, God never granted this rule to Adam; it was a prediction to Eve concerning the choice she would make. We must also not forget that the Savior was promised through her seed alone. Would God send His Son through the inherently deceivable? Why did He have to be born of a virgin?
not so among you. (Ex. 15:20, Judges 4:4-5:12, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Isaiah 3:12)
come and reason. So His silence is not an indicator of approval but of patience and mercy. (1 Sam. 6:6-9)
a conspiracy of silencebecause the author was a woman, most likely Priscilla. Who wrote Esther? Ruth? We should also note that none of the Bible was written by a Gentile or a sea captain or a court jester. How many women were taught to write? How many should we expect from a patriarchal society? Does God ever say why He does things like commending the bravery of a prostitute (or possibly, an inn keeper, which in patriarchal thinking is a greater sin than prostitution since she ran a business without male oversight!) and allowing the Savior to be born of her line? So again we must ask why something like this is taken as tacit approval of male supremacy by God. (Joshua 6:25, Mt. 1:5)
plain readingof scripture says women can’t teach men. That same
plain readingalso says that we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin, that we should take wine for our stomach problems, that we should wash each other’s feet, that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, that our only debt should be love, and that
the first will be last and the last will be first. And if anyone tries to cry
contextin defense of their
plain readingthey have defeated their own argument. More questions for
plain readingand consistency: Why does a woman need a head covering to signify male rule if she can only pray and prophecy in private or among other women? Where does God ever tell godly women they are in sin if they teach truth?
roleswhere the man leads and the woman follows. If two people are equal in being or essence, there cannot be permanent hierarchy between them on the basis of essential qualities of being. That is, if someone is held to a permanent subservient role, based upon their flesh in some way, then that person is inferior by definition. Temporary hierarchies, such as employer/employee or parent/child, do not violate this rule because the employee can change jobs and the child can grow up. But slavery is defined as
submission to a dominating influence; the state of a person who is a chattel of another(Webster’s). A slave can be freed but is at the mercy of the owner. Though the slave is acknowledged to be as fully human as the owner, the slave is nonetheless held to be inferior in being. A
roleis, by definition, a part to play or a function to perform. The latter is held by male supremacism as meaning a woman’s role is to submit permanently to a man for no other reason than the flesh (the physical). Yet because it is based upon a permanent and intrinsic quality, it defines the woman as inferior to the man. It is held that this leader/follower relationship is
complementarybetween equals, but this amounts to defining equal as unequal, since the woman can never outrank the man in return. Truly equal complementation would be between friends or co-workers who each have different skills or jobs, or like the cooperation between the left and right hands.
headin Greek never meant ruler or boss; the head/body metaphor was an expression of unity. If it meant boss, then the Bible would be ordering wives to
serve two masters, especially since male supremacism insists that a wife is to obey her husband
as to the Lord.
the chosen master(lit. Greek). Many are called
apostles(lit.
sent out), including Junia, and many are called
servantsor
ministers(all from the Greek word diaconos), including Phoebe. And
pastor, mentioned only once in the entire NT, is a spiritual gift, not an office or title. (Rom. 16:1, 7, Eph. 4:11)
filled with the Spiritin vs. 18: speaking, singing, thanking, and supporting. All believers are to defer (Paul always uses other words when discussing submission to authority) to one another; there are no exceptions. The man as
headto the wife is her source, and she is his support, just as the head feeds the body and the body supports the head. In spite of the Roman law that made her attached to her father for life (instead of her husband)*, Paul tells Christian wives to be loyal to their
ownhusbands. To say this as a matter of obedience would make no sense in a society where this was already presumed and encoded in law, and to treat any human as The Lord would be idolatrous. So Paul is not making
lording overa new definition of submission. (*The law was
marriage without hand, designed to give abused wives a way out of a bad marriage. She remained the property of her father, who at any time could give her to another man. So Paul is saying something quite radically opposed to Roman law.)
slippery slopeargument was raised to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War south, fearing the breakdown of society should slaves be freed and treated as equals. And historically (even today), homosexuality has been rampant in very patriarchal societies.
equivocationfallacy, since it confuses ability with permission. Neither side believes women lack the ability to preach, teach, or lead. The absurdity of this argument is clear when we substitute the proper meanings for ’can’:
Men lack the ability to give birth, so women should not complain about lack of permission to hold authority.
A concise definition of patriarchy (male entitlement) is the belief that God can speak through a donkey (Num. 22:28), a plant (Ex. 3:2), or a rock (Luke 19:40), but never a woman. See also Female Supremacism: A Parody.
Even with the worst possible interpretations of scripture, the Bible treats women far better than secular or religious communities have done. The Christian community needs to reject gender roles for Christian roles, flesh-based permission for spiritual gifting, and chains of command for mutual service. The truly humble don’t fight for the last place in line or forbid others to join them there. Authority to teach or preach never lies with the speaker but with the indwelling Holy Spirit, who does not dispense gifts in pink and blue boxes (i.e. by the flesh). This renders moot the entire question of Christian women’s permission.
Let us stop hobbling the Body of Christ, and start treating all fellow believers as equals, with humility and compassion. Only the proud fear equality, and such pride harms the Christian community and our witness to the world. Remember what Jesus warned in Mat. 19:30 and Mark 10:31: But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
A whole-Bible study on this topic can be read here.