Genesis Examples

God Is Revealed in Male Terminology

Women under the Law

Male Leadership In OT

Prophetesses in the OT

Paganism and Women

Good OT Examples of Women

Jesus and Women

The Church and Women

Feminism

Return To Our Home Page

· created both at the same time.

· created the woman first.

· created the man first.

Hence - it was a CHOICE of God.

While there are some female traits (see Deut. 32:18; Isa 42:14; Isa. 49:15 for examples) - such traits are predominantly given in male terms.

For every one of the female passages you can see SCORES upon SCORES where the mail trait IS emphasized.

He could have revealed himself in genderless terminology - but He did NOT.

for having a BOY - 7 days

for having a GIRL - 14 days

after having a boy = 33 days

after having a girl = 66 days

He paid 50 shekels of silver.

He had to marry her.

He could NEVER divorce her.

NEVER to be turned out -

Would have devastated her - financial disaster.

Not to be sold to foreigner

If given to masters son as concubine, master had to treat her as his own daughter

He must give her a full month to mourn her parents.

He could NEVER treat her as slave or sell her.

if there were NO sons, THEN the daughters were to receive the inheritance.

"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."

This section is to show the principle of male leadership as it was given in the law of Moses.

Men Priests

Levites

Priest's Daughters = special laws

Concerning Offerings

Concerning Feasts

Conclusion

It did NOT include daughters - it was male spiritual leadership.

It had nothing to do with women's abilities, it was a decree of God.

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (KJV)

She was a Judge - a deliverer, a military leader.

She was called a prophetess - Jud. 4:4-10.

She agreed to GO with Barak -

. He should have willingly taken such leadership position.

It is not a matter of saying to women that they CANT lead.

It is a matter of saying to MEN that women shouldn't HAVE TO lead!

The Priests of this time period didn't even KNOW where to FIND Gods book - What a commentary on the male leadership of the times.

Huldah was a prophetess - she spoke Gods word to them.

Was she a leader -

It was RARE,

It was NOT perpetual -

They Were not in positions of leading public worship

.

To use these as justification for equality in leadership roles is not only without foundation, but a perversion of the scriptures.

EACH rather shows that it SHOULD have been the male who exercised such spiritual leadership - but they had FAILED.

It was NOT to change the principle - turn it over to women, but to raise up again Godly men who would fulfill their responsibilities.

18 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?

20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

Return To Paganism And Women

- they allowed the women to yet live!

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. (KJV)

Return To Paganism And Women

for it becomes that much harder to maintain independent, spiritual leadership among such -

That was the sin.

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (KJV)

refusing to be seen as under a man

(see - Isa. 3:16-21; 32:9-11)

12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

14 The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

The problem seen today in the New Age movement - predominantly female.

This does not by itself prohibit women from leadership -

but it does historically show the problem that is often associated with such.

There is actually more mention of such FALSE religious leadership by women than example such as Deborah.

When Joab would have killed the whole city to get to Sheba -

She had the better tactic -

She persuaded the city (including the men) to throw Sheba's head over the wall

- rather than having the whole city killed.

Again, there is no warrant here for then elevating her to a position of Priest, Levite, or perpetual headship and spiritual leadership.

Women, even foreign women CAN show desire to learn about the True God of heaven and serve him.

She used by Jesus to condemn the spiritual slowness of the men in His time -

In all of her good, strong traits, there is not even a HINT of her becoming a public, spiritual leader among

Gods people.

Surely, such a woman would have been more spiritual and moral than most of the priests

- even the high priests.

But that is not then to mean she should replace them.

She was a leader, she was a spiritual leader, but it was different than the realm of her husband.

Jesus entered into the world with this background of male headship - what do we see with His treatment of women. Did He elevate them places of headship among the people? Did he choose them to fulfill the spiritual leadership needs of the people?

Without a doubt she was A Special woman - the angels greeting, Luke 1:28-38.

She however was NOT a sinless woman, nor to be venerated and worshipped - but was blessed among women non-the-less - Luke 1:46-49.

Though she was the mother of Jesus, she was never put as a leader of Gods people - she was not called to be a priest or leader in the temple or synagogue - let alone as an apostle, a preacher, a deacon...

Jesus said concerning her:

We do not KNOW anything about her prophecies except her speaking about Jesus in Luke 2:36-48. Though she was a prophetess, she was NOT called to the priesthood, she was not instrumental in the worship of the temple, she was not one of the elders of Israel. As with the other women who prophesied, she did not undo the male spiritual leadership principle.

This woman had 2 strikes against her - she was a woman and she was a Samaritan. Jesus dealt with her on the basis of her own spiritual relationship with God - calling her to faith in Him as the messiah. Such was the equality that he showed - ALL can be religious, ALL can be right with God.

She did go and tell the city - but HOW? Was it a call to publicly proclaim the gospel? NO. Did she become the preacher of the city? NO. Was she elevated to position of spiritual headship? Did she lead the people in worship? NO, NO, NO -

Being saved on an equal basis as men did not mean that she was then to be made a spiritual leader over men.

Though the disciples would have sent her away - Jesus dealt with her as one of great faith - a statement that is not found often in the bible.

It begins and ends here - nothing further to show about her being a spiritual leader , the head of the synagogue, or any other position of leadership. It DOES show that women, gentiles can be SAVED.

While she was forgiven - this wold not prove anything about Jesus elevating such to positions of equality in leadership or role position with men.

There is an implicit rebuke of the failing spiritual leadership of these hypocritical men - but that is NOT proof of their being dismissed and replaced by more spiritually minded women.

The story about this 'Sinful' woman washes Jesus feet is recorded for us in Luke 7:36-50.

Again, while forgiven - not indication of anything other than that.

Luke 8:1-3 - Mary (Magdalene), Joanna, Susanna, and many others.

These HELPED TO SUPPORT - even out of their own means.

Were they given positions of leadership - NO

Were they asked to take an active part in the public preaching and teaching - NO.

This story is told in Luke 10:38-42.

Mary WAS spiritual - choosing the GOOD part.

What more can one prove - nothing.

These women are possibly the same as in Luke 10 - but ???

Mary anointed Jesus for burial - performing an act of service that the men had not seen fit to do. For this she was commended - would be spoken of by other generations -

Mark 15:40-41, these faithful women came and watched this horrible event.

See also Luke 23:48-49.

There is nothing more to learn here about making any of them leaders among God's people.

These women were going there to again perform a service - the proper burial of Jesus. Jesus appeared to them.

What is there in this to learn about women in spiritual leadership roles?

Jesus treated women with respect - acknowledging their spiritual awareness and their independent

relationship to God based upon forgiveness.

Jesus rebuked the men of his day for their abuse and high-handed treatment of women (like the adulteress) -

Jesus did NOT make them part of the leadership -

He did not choose them to be apostles,

He did not choose them to be sent out to preach the limited commission - Luke 10:1-16

Was it just because doing such would have offended the establishment?

Women were present in Acts 2 - the beginning of the church. Some of them had been with Jesus and the Apostles. However, it was the apostles (men) who were endowed with the Spirit and began the preaching of the gospel.

This was nothing NEW - for SOME women did this in the OT also.

Yet prophesying by women never changed the role of MALE spiritual leadership and headship in the Old Testament. Neither does it here in the New Testament.

Again, there were SOME women who prophesied in the Old Testament - but that did NOT change the principle of Male Spiritual Leadership. It doesn't change it here either. Concerning these women it may be asked: Were they:

Nothing more really proven except there is NO indication that male spiritual leadership has been changed or even challenged.

It is admitted that such women did - even as SOME women prophesied in the Old Testament. They were NOT to be considered EQUAL in function as men - which can be seen in that they are to remain veiled and the men are to be unveiled. While they did pray and prophecy - if they did so in a way to try and show they were on the same level as the men who did these things - they were WRONG.

There was NOT an elevation to leadership of these women - but rather an renewal of the headship of men in such regards.

The New Testament does teach an equality of relationship - both men and women equally related TO God. That does not mean they were equally related to each other - nor able to function in all of the same roles and responsibilities. Notice the equality as seen in the New Testament.

This is the equality of Gal. 3. It is equality in salvation - NOT roles or authority. The same author who wrote this also wrote 1 Cor. 11, 1 Cor. 14, and 1 Tim. 2 - he did NOT contradict himself.

Without any controversy, all of the first deacons were male. It was an official recognition, a public role of serving the church. This was in an area that most would say the women are more naturally inclined to fulfill, yet NO WOMEN were chosen for this.

It is NOT that women didn't serve others - doing good works, for many (such as Dorcas) did. Yet, there is NO indication that they were to be chosen to be in a position of leadership in such - NOT even leadership of serving.

These seem to be husband and wife. As such, they BOTH taught Apollos the way of truth more accurately ..Acts 18:24-26. There again is NO indication of any shared spiritual leadership or headship -

For one to see such in this passage is to read INTO the passage what you WANT to find.

Likewise there is NO indication that she was an elder, or a deacon, or any other role as a spiritual leader.

Women CAN teach without being in positions of leadership - privately teaching. They can teach a man. What has been prohibited is teaching or having authority OVER a man.

In trying to understand how the feminist movement can take the same Bible as we do and come to completely different viewpoints on the role of women in the church we must take into consideration their assumptions or background viewpoints. To this end I would suggest there are 5 main pillars that they use to come to their various viewpoints. These would include:

1. The concept of mutual submission.

2. The word "head" as it is used to describe the husband's or man's role means "origin" or "source"; it never means "leader" or "one in authority."

3. Paul's prohibition of women as teachers of men in 1 Tim. 2:12 was intended to be limited to the church at Ephesus and intended even there to be temporary.

4. The kind of authority that Paul does not allow women to exercise in 1 Tim. 2:12 is not ordinary authority but a sinful, domineering authority.

5. Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 was intended to erase ALL role distinctions between men and women for all time.

Let us take a look at each of these.

This pillar is based upon Eph. 5:51 and is taken to mean that where subjection is taught it is to be RECIPROCAL AND MUTUAL. Men are to be in subjection to women even as women are to be in subjection to men. This in effect denies any concept of gender based roles of leadership and submission.

Submission is taught in this passage concerning several relationships not just man and woman. IF vs. 21 modifies the submission of women then it should modify equally the other relationships making them reciprocal and mutual. If the principle doesn't work for these other relationships then we can know that it isn't a principle at all (or that we have misunderstood what the real principle was).

Does it work concerning fathers and children? Are fathers ever taught to be "in subjection to their children"?

Does it work concerning master and slave? Are we to understand that masters are just as obligated to be in subjection to the slave as the slave is the master?

Does it work concerning Christ and the church? Are we to understand that Christ is just as much in subjection to the church as the church is to Christ?

NO, NO, NO.

The real principle taught here is that we are to submit ourselves to one another where the circumstances call for it. "Submit to one another wherever your position in life requires such submission, as it does for wives, children, and slaves. If you are a wife, submit to your husband, If you are a child, submit to your parents. If you are a slave, submit to your master. We are told to "be subject to one another" because the various authority-submission relationships often may overlap. The wife submits to her husband, but the husband in turn owes submission to the elders of the church. It is conceivable that the same person could have been both a slave in the home and an elder in the church, both yielding and receiving submission, both perhaps in relation to his master. And even elders, along with husbands, wives, slaves, and masters, owe submission to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1)" pg. 306, Feminism and the Bible.

The submission in Ephesians 5:21 is NOT mutual; in any relationship where it applies at all, it is one-directional.

The normal / usual understanding of the word "head" (grk. = kephale) when it is used in a figurative sense (as here in Eph. 5:23) is "leader" or "one in authority".

Since this doesn't fit feminist theology, (meaning that it would lead to an understanding of gender based leadership), the word is redefined. It is affirmed that the word is NEVER metaphorically used to mean "chief, leader, or one in authority". Then it is affirmed that "kephale" was often used to mean "source" or "origin".

An exhaustive and authoritative study on this was done by Wayne Grudem, "Does kephale ("head") Mean "Source" or "Authority Over" in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples."

1. There are NO clear uses of kephale as "source" or "origin" in ancient Greek. He concludes: "In fact no Greek-speaking reader would have thought of the sense "source" when reading kephale."

2. He found it used 37 times in the metaphorical sense of "ruler" or "one of superior authority or rank" in writings OUTSIDE the NT. This does not include many of the early Christian writers, who used it often in this sense.

In the NT, kephale is paired with the wife's submission. She is to submit BECAUSE he is her HEAD. Likewise, it is paired with the church's submission to Christ BECAUSE He is its head (Eph. 5:23). See its usage in Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18; 2:10;.

In order to avoid the force of this passage, it is alleged that this prohibition was intended ONLY to apply to that situation and place. Such understanding revolves around five basic theses (assumptions?).

1st - This is said to be so BECAUSE we are told that there were women heretics at Ephesus.

2nd - These women were teaching such false doctrines because they were uneducated and not properly taught.

3rd The prohibition uses the word teach (didasko) that is said to refer to the content of the teaching and not the act.

4th Since Paul used the present tense "I do not allow" this is supposed to indicate such was only temporary or limited.

5th the example of Adam and Eve is given only as an illustration of this sort of problem arguing that Eve was deceived BECAUSE she was not properly educated.

The word "authenteo" is the word that is under discussion here. It means basically to the ordinary and proper exercise of authority. The passage says that women are not to "teach or to exercise authority" OVER a man.

We are told though that the word was also used by the Greeks to speak of "to murder" or "to commit a crime". From here it is argued that such "authority" signifies destructive domination to have absolute power over persons in such a way as to destroy them. Hence, women are only prohibited from authority over a man that is sinful, domineering, and destructive.

First, while the word SOMETIMES had a negative connotation (i.e., to murder) it doesn"t follow that such a word then ALWAYS has a negative connotation. For example, luo can mean "to loose, to set free" and yet at other times can mean "to destroy, to break".

Did the Greeks use it to speak of authority in a non-destructive and non-evil sense? The answer is YES. In fact "the recognized meaning for the first century BC and AD … is "to have authority over". The nuance is positive, or at least neutral, but in any case there is no inherent negative overtone such as is suggested by the word "domineer".

Second, when authenteo meant authority there is no indication that it meant any kind of harsh, destructive, domineering authority.

Finally, if this WAS speaking of "evil, sinful, domineering authority", why did Paul restrict only the WOMEN from exercising such? If it was sinful authority being discussed surely Paul would have condemned and forbidden BOTH men and women from such. It wasn't women exercising sinful / domineering authority that was prohibited, it was women in religious relationships exercising authority over a man.

This verse is taken to mean that God erased ALL role distinctions. Hence any verse that would seem to teach any distinction in role, authority, or position is said to be either Paul's misunderstanding or our misunderstanding. Hence in effect this verse is often used to pit Paul against Paul.

This passage however is in context referring to the ability to inherit the blessings. Under the OT law such was restricted from gentiles, slaves and women. Now, under the new covenant ALL are able to inherit the blessings of Abraham All are considered God's children by adoption ALL are blessed in Christ.

This however doesn't deal with differences in role, responsibilities, or authority. Elders still are to be submitted to and women are not to be elders.