WHICH WOMAN OF THE BIBLE REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO UNGODLY GENDER AUTHORITY?
Queen Vashti. A woman who responded in the way those who reject gender authority approve and champion! But the book is named after Esther, who submitted to both godly and ungodly gender authority!
Why are Ruth and Esther never mentioned in the debate about gender authority?
Read the following passages, and you will understand why... these books affirm the practice of gender authority as strongly or stronger than any other books of the Bible! In fact, if gender authority does not exist, I don’t think Ruth could be a glorious book of the Bible, carrying a picture of Christ and the Church. I also think in all fairness, the book of Esther should have been named after the first queen, Vashti!
RUTH
Ruth 3:1-13 (NIV) One day Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, "My daughter, should I not try to find a home for you, where you will be well provided for? [2] Is not Boaz, with whose servant girls you have been, a kinsman of ours? Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. [3] Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don't let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. [4] When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do."
[5] "I will do whatever you say," Ruth answered. [6] So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do.
[7] When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. [8] In the middle of the night something startled the man, and he turned and discovered a woman lying at his feet.
[9] "Who are you?" he asked.
"I am your servant Ruth," she said. "Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer."
[10] "The Lord bless you, my daughter," he replied. "This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. [11] And now, my daughter, don't be afraid. I will do for you all you ask. All my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of noble character. [12] Although it is true that I am near of kin, there is a kinsman-redeemer nearer than I. [13] Stay here for the night, and in the morning if he wants to redeem, good; let him redeem. But if he is not willing, as surely as the Lord lives I will do it. Lie here until morning."
The submission of Ruth to a foreign mother-in-law, after the death of her husband is a additional picture of the importance of authority. Her posture of submission to Boaz is certainly a example of positive, powerful and protective gender authority. The position of the appropriate male being a provider and protector of a woman is consistent in both Old and New Testaments and even in cultures throughout history.
ESTHER
Esther 1:10-22 (NIV) On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him--Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcas-- [11] to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. [12] But when the attendants delivered the king's command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger.
[13] Since it was customary for the king to consult experts in matters of law and justice, he spoke with the wise men who understood the times [14] and were closest to the king--Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memucan, the seven nobles of Persia and Media who had special access to the king and were highest in the kingdom.
[15] "According to law, what must be done to Queen Vashti?" he asked. "She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes that the eunuchs have taken to her."
[16] Then Memucan replied in the presence of the king and the nobles, "Queen Vashti has done wrong, not only against the king but also against all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces of King Xerxes. [17] For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, 'King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.' [18] This very day the Persian and Median women of the nobility who have heard about the queen's conduct will respond to all the king's nobles in the same way. There will be no end of disrespect and discord.
[19] "Therefore, if it pleases the king, let him issue a royal decree and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media, which cannot be repealed, that Vashti is never again to enter the presence of King Xerxes. Also let the king give her royal position to someone else who is better than she. [20] Then when the king's edict is proclaimed throughout all his vast realm, all the women will respect their husbands, from the least to the greatest."
[21] The king and his nobles were pleased with this advice, so the king did as Memucan proposed. [22] He sent dispatches to all parts of the kingdom, to each province in its own script and to each people in its own language, proclaiming in each people's tongue that every man should be ruler over his own household.
Esther 2:1-4 (NIV) Later when the anger of King Xerxes had subsided, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what he had decreed about her. [2] Then the king's personal attendants proposed, "Let a search be made for beautiful young virgins for the king. [3] Let the king appoint commissioners in every province of his realm to bring all these beautiful girls into the harem at the citadel of Susa. Let them be placed under the care of Hegai, the king's eunuch, who is in charge of the women; and let beauty treatments be given to them. [4] Then let the girl who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti." This advice appealed to the king, and he followed it.
Esther 2:5-11 (NIV) Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, [6] who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. [7] Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther, was lovely in form and features, and Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.
[8] When the king's order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king's palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem. [9] The girl pleased him and won his favor. Immediately he provided her with her beauty treatments and special food. He assigned to her seven maids selected from the king's palace and moved her and her maids into the best place in the harem.
[10] Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so. [11] Every day he walked back and forth near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was and what was happening to her.
Esther 2:17-18 (NIV) Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. [18] And the king gave a great banquet, Esther's banquet, for all his nobles and officials. He proclaimed a holiday throughout the provinces and distributed gifts with royal liberality.
Esther 10:3 (NIV) Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews.
The example of God working through Esther submitting to the gender authority of both her cousin even after becoming a queen (A godly man, but not immediate family non-the-less.), and a very ungodly king challenges our understanding of the whole principle of authority! Adding Haman to the situation only makes it more pronounced. As a whole, the book underscores the importance of authority, even in the face of sinfulness, extreme cruelty and injustice in male leadership. When you preface that with the removal of Queen Vashti for the reason stated, there is a clear and powerful condemnation of modern reasoning and the rejection of gender authority.
CONCLUSION
In both Ruth and Esther you find a extremely strong and clear sense of male gender authority and God’s ability to work through it. Gender authority was used by God and embraced by these godly women. More surprising? In Ruth, the authority is benevolent. In Esther however, it is at the hands of what the Bible records, and secular history echoes, a very evil King. Esther and Mordecai not only submit, but Mordecai even protects that abusive authority against assassination!
ABIGAIL
I will include Abigail in this chapter, because sometimes questions are raised about her situation.
The story of Abigail is recorded in I Samuel chapter 25. The summery of it is this; Abigail was the intelligent and beautiful wife of Nabal, a harsh and evil man. David has his men watch Nabal’s sheep herd, protecting them from thieves and wild animals. When the season is over, Nabal refuses to reward David. David then prepares to kill Nabal and his male servants, but Abigail intercedes with gifts of food and a plea. David accepts the response and turns back. When Nabal finds out, he has what appears to be a heart attack and dies within ten days. David then offers to marry Abigail, who becomes his third wife after Michal (Who King Saul has given to another man.), and Ahinoam.
In II Samuel 3:3 Abigail is listed as the second of six wives of David. She bears his second-born son, Chileab (“everything of the Father”). His birth is also recorded in I Chronicles 3:1, where his name is listed as Daniel (“God is my judge”). He does not succeed Absalom to the throne as would be expected. There is no other record of his life in the Bible, and it is unknown what became of him.
QUESTIONS
1. Whether you agree with gender authority or not, going behind your mate’s back is wrong. Nor is it even a picture of mutual submission. Giving your husband a heart attack by doing so also has serious implications. Sarah is commended and remembered
for submission to Abraham’s questionable commands. Abigail quickly fades into obscurity.
2. Becoming a wife out of sympathy is not what most women dream of. Nor is being one wife of many. Having a son who does not receive the position he is due, and is never spoken of again also causes questions.
3. The question has been raised, if David had the guilt of Nabal’s death on his mind (As Abigail warned he would if he killed him.), would he have killed Bathsheba’s husband?
CONCLUSION
I cannot argue with the fact that David accepts Abigail’s plea as wise and godly. I agree that it would have been wrong for David to avenge himself. However, I deeply struggle with how Abigail went about her intervention. I also find her immediate fading to the background and the disappearance of her son a cause for caution and question.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
CHAPTER FIVE
HOW MANY TIMES IS ‘THERE IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE’ REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
-‘neither Jew nor Gentile’ is referred to five times.
-‘Slave nor free’ three times.
-‘Circumcised or uncircumcised’ one time.
’Neither male nor female’ is mentioned in only one of five similar passages about being one in Christ!
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
1 Cor. 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Ephes. 2:15-16 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, [16] and in this one body to reconcile both of them (Jew and Gentile) to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Col. 3:9-11 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices [10] and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [11] Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
If that statement means removing gender authority, it was not very important in the scope of the other relationships mentioned. Yet, if it really was the message, it would have had revolutionary implications for it’s time. To have that idea flung out with one mention and no further explanation makes it ridiculous to accept as a valid interpretation! However, we do exactly that with ignorant arrogance!
Just as serious, why only the distinction of gender authority? Why not other gender distinctions? Who even says that was the specific distinction to be changed? Further more, that interpretation would require comparable changes in the other subjects stated in the passages.
Do you also realize that by saying that statement changes gender authority you are acknowledging that it existed prior to the change?
GENDER IN CHRIST
The context of all the references noted above is essential in correctly interpreting the meaning. They all clearly and consistently emphasis the availability of salvation to all persons! Not one of them have anything to do with changing any part of the relationship between the comparisons!
Galatians 3:19-29 (NASB-U) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. [20] Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. [21] Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. [22] But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. [24] Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. [26] For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
OVERVIEW OF THE PASSAGE
1. Galatians contains two dominate themes;
A. The justification of the believer in Christ apart of works.
B. The ministry of the Holy Spirit as the indwelling energizer of the our life
in Christ.
2. The letter falls into three sections;
1. Defense of Paul’s gospel and apostleship. (1&2)
2. Argument for justification by faith alone, apart from legal works. (3&4)
3. Exhortation to practice the principles and responsibilities of the
Christian life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (5&6)
3. Immediate Context of chapters 3 & 4;
-Negates any claim by Judaizers that the Old Covenant is a better life.
-The Law is to be a guardian on the path toward maturity and free
enjoyment of sonship.
-Membership in God’s family comes to any and all believers with freedom,
family membership and heirship.
The context of the immediate verses;
3:26 Faith in Christ makes us children of God.
3:27 We are ‘clothed’ with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5, I Cor. 12:13).
3:28 That clothing with Christ is not restricted by culture, social rank and sex.
QUESTIONS
1. Where is gender authority specified in this passage?
2. Why not another gender distinction? For instance, why would the distinction of masculinity and femininity not be eliminated too?
3. How can you just pick gender out of the context, and change one aspect of it (authority) while ignoring the other subjects of the passage? How does that distinction apply to “neither Jew nor Greek“? Is the authority structure also removed from the work place (“slave nor free“)?
4. Are all authority structures then eliminated? Why not?
Choosing gender authority as the subject of this passage minimizes the truth that all humans have God’s salvation available. That is a sad exchange to say the least!
It must be noted here that ‘man and woman’ is always used in any other passages relating to gender roles, not ‘male and female’. If this passage were referring to gender roles, why the exception?
The term ‘Male & female’ in verse 28 draws us back to Genesis 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Galatians 3:28 tells us that our broken image of God is restored to the image of God (male & female) through Christ! We were restored to the original design! This is part of the critical context of the Galatians passage.
Can the context of Galatians 3:28 refer to the role of authority?
What does that do to the principle and concept of authority? Is it plausible that God would remove the framework of authority between men and women in Christ, and not in government, church and family?
If you believe a woman can be in authority in government and church, but not in the home, how would you practically exercise the transitional shifts of authority?
Is the role change in all three areas (marriage, church and government) supported by scripture? Is there instruction on the ‘new’ structure and how it operates?
If equality of position is the point, then why is there not only no instruction on how that radical change is to be walked out, but instead, confusing, if not conflicting passages to the contrary?
If mutual submission is a new order in the home, how does that harmonize with the principle in Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (See also Luke 16:13)
Even more significant, how is mutual submission in marriage a reflection of Christ and the Church? Doesn’t that view require Christ to submit to the Church too?
What other passages validate the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as neutralizing authority? How can such a radical change hang on one passage?
CONCLUSION
1. Salvation in Christ is being spoken of, rather than roles with each other. (vs 22,24,26,27)
2. Oneness in Christ does not obliterate the functional differences between slaves and masters (I Cor 7:20-24), parents and children (Eph. 6:1-4), Christian citizens and rulers (Rom. 13:1-7). Why then should we assert that it does so between male and female?
3. Doesn’t the interpretation that it removes authority roles in marriage conflict with I Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18 and I Pet. 3:1-6? And in the church with I Tim 2:8-3:15?
4. The interpretation of Galatians 3:28 removing gender authority puts the emphasis on the person, the classical view puts the emphasis on Christ. A accurate example of Galatians 3:28 would be the picture of Baptism found in Romans 6. Anyone who is buried with Christ, rises in Christ. This same interpretation is affirmed in the very context of gender authority in I Peter 3:7 (NIV) “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them wit respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life…”
5. Salvation in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions, it does not eradicate them.
6. I find the interpretation and practice of the early post-NT Church to be in agreement.
That includes Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine. Martin Luther devotes three chapters to 3:28 and makes no such claim. John Calvin taught that freedom in Christ truly exists within limits and restrictions of a different order. None of the major teachers in the history of the church thought Galatians 3:28 abolished the male-female authority distinction in marriage or the church.
When someone proclaims they have uncovered ‘new truth’ such as this, it is a tribute to self-esteem rather than anything else. Christ promised the Church the permanent, indwelling Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:12-15). Rejection of widespread agreement over time and among believers about issues such as this should not be picked up carelessly.
In marriage, equal gender value coexists with divinely mandated leadership and submission, just as it does in the government and church. Gender authority is a platform for protection and serving. This authority is never to allow abuse, offence, or exploitation. Nor does gender authority change our value as Paul points out in I Cor. 12:12-30.
CONTEXT OF THE OTHER FOUR PASSAGES LISTED
Romans 10:8-13 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: [9] That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. [11] As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." [12] For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [13] for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
1 Cor. 12:12-20 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. [13] For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
[14] Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. [15] If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. [16] And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. [17] If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? [18] But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. [19] If they were all one part, where would the body be? [20] As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
Ephes. 2:14-19 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, [15] by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, [16] and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. [17] He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
[19] Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
Col. 3:1-11 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. [3] For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. [4] When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
[5] Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. [6] Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. [7] You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. [8] But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. [9] Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices [10] and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [11] Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
HOW MANY TIMES IS ‘THERE IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE’ REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
-‘neither Jew nor Gentile’ is referred to five times.
-‘Slave nor free’ three times.
-‘Circumcised or uncircumcised’ one time.
’Neither male nor female’ is mentioned in only one of five similar passages about being one in Christ!
Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
1 Cor. 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Ephes. 2:15-16 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, [16] and in this one body to reconcile both of them (Jew and Gentile) to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Col. 3:9-11 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices [10] and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [11] Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
If that statement means removing gender authority, it was not very important in the scope of the other relationships mentioned. Yet, if it really was the message, it would have had revolutionary implications for it’s time. To have that idea flung out with one mention and no further explanation makes it ridiculous to accept as a valid interpretation! However, we do exactly that with ignorant arrogance!
Just as serious, why only the distinction of gender authority? Why not other gender distinctions? Who even says that was the specific distinction to be changed? Further more, that interpretation would require comparable changes in the other subjects stated in the passages.
Do you also realize that by saying that statement changes gender authority you are acknowledging that it existed prior to the change?
GENDER IN CHRIST
The context of all the references noted above is essential in correctly interpreting the meaning. They all clearly and consistently emphasis the availability of salvation to all persons! Not one of them have anything to do with changing any part of the relationship between the comparisons!
Galatians 3:19-29 (NASB-U) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. [20] Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. [21] Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. [22] But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. [24] Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. [26] For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
OVERVIEW OF THE PASSAGE
1. Galatians contains two dominate themes;
A. The justification of the believer in Christ apart of works.
B. The ministry of the Holy Spirit as the indwelling energizer of the our life
in Christ.
2. The letter falls into three sections;
1. Defense of Paul’s gospel and apostleship. (1&2)
2. Argument for justification by faith alone, apart from legal works. (3&4)
3. Exhortation to practice the principles and responsibilities of the
Christian life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (5&6)
3. Immediate Context of chapters 3 & 4;
-Negates any claim by Judaizers that the Old Covenant is a better life.
-The Law is to be a guardian on the path toward maturity and free
enjoyment of sonship.
-Membership in God’s family comes to any and all believers with freedom,
family membership and heirship.
The context of the immediate verses;
3:26 Faith in Christ makes us children of God.
3:27 We are ‘clothed’ with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5, I Cor. 12:13).
3:28 That clothing with Christ is not restricted by culture, social rank and sex.
QUESTIONS
1. Where is gender authority specified in this passage?
2. Why not another gender distinction? For instance, why would the distinction of masculinity and femininity not be eliminated too?
3. How can you just pick gender out of the context, and change one aspect of it (authority) while ignoring the other subjects of the passage? How does that distinction apply to “neither Jew nor Greek“? Is the authority structure also removed from the work place (“slave nor free“)?
4. Are all authority structures then eliminated? Why not?
Choosing gender authority as the subject of this passage minimizes the truth that all humans have God’s salvation available. That is a sad exchange to say the least!
It must be noted here that ‘man and woman’ is always used in any other passages relating to gender roles, not ‘male and female’. If this passage were referring to gender roles, why the exception?
The term ‘Male & female’ in verse 28 draws us back to Genesis 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Galatians 3:28 tells us that our broken image of God is restored to the image of God (male & female) through Christ! We were restored to the original design! This is part of the critical context of the Galatians passage.
Can the context of Galatians 3:28 refer to the role of authority?
What does that do to the principle and concept of authority? Is it plausible that God would remove the framework of authority between men and women in Christ, and not in government, church and family?
If you believe a woman can be in authority in government and church, but not in the home, how would you practically exercise the transitional shifts of authority?
Is the role change in all three areas (marriage, church and government) supported by scripture? Is there instruction on the ‘new’ structure and how it operates?
If equality of position is the point, then why is there not only no instruction on how that radical change is to be walked out, but instead, confusing, if not conflicting passages to the contrary?
If mutual submission is a new order in the home, how does that harmonize with the principle in Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (See also Luke 16:13)
Even more significant, how is mutual submission in marriage a reflection of Christ and the Church? Doesn’t that view require Christ to submit to the Church too?
What other passages validate the interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as neutralizing authority? How can such a radical change hang on one passage?
CONCLUSION
1. Salvation in Christ is being spoken of, rather than roles with each other. (vs 22,24,26,27)
2. Oneness in Christ does not obliterate the functional differences between slaves and masters (I Cor 7:20-24), parents and children (Eph. 6:1-4), Christian citizens and rulers (Rom. 13:1-7). Why then should we assert that it does so between male and female?
3. Doesn’t the interpretation that it removes authority roles in marriage conflict with I Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18 and I Pet. 3:1-6? And in the church with I Tim 2:8-3:15?
4. The interpretation of Galatians 3:28 removing gender authority puts the emphasis on the person, the classical view puts the emphasis on Christ. A accurate example of Galatians 3:28 would be the picture of Baptism found in Romans 6. Anyone who is buried with Christ, rises in Christ. This same interpretation is affirmed in the very context of gender authority in I Peter 3:7 (NIV) “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them wit respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life…”
5. Salvation in Christ transcends ethnic, social and sexual distinctions, it does not eradicate them.
6. I find the interpretation and practice of the early post-NT Church to be in agreement.
That includes Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine. Martin Luther devotes three chapters to 3:28 and makes no such claim. John Calvin taught that freedom in Christ truly exists within limits and restrictions of a different order. None of the major teachers in the history of the church thought Galatians 3:28 abolished the male-female authority distinction in marriage or the church.
When someone proclaims they have uncovered ‘new truth’ such as this, it is a tribute to self-esteem rather than anything else. Christ promised the Church the permanent, indwelling Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:12-15). Rejection of widespread agreement over time and among believers about issues such as this should not be picked up carelessly.
In marriage, equal gender value coexists with divinely mandated leadership and submission, just as it does in the government and church. Gender authority is a platform for protection and serving. This authority is never to allow abuse, offence, or exploitation. Nor does gender authority change our value as Paul points out in I Cor. 12:12-30.
CONTEXT OF THE OTHER FOUR PASSAGES LISTED
Romans 10:8-13 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: [9] That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. [11] As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." [12] For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [13] for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
1 Cor. 12:12-20 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. [13] For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
[14] Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. [15] If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. [16] And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. [17] If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? [18] But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. [19] If they were all one part, where would the body be? [20] As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
Ephes. 2:14-19 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, [15] by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, [16] and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. [17] He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. [18] For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
[19] Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
Col. 3:1-11 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. [3] For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. [4] When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
[5] Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. [6] Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. [7] You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. [8] But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. [9] Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices [10] and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [11] Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
CHAPTER SIX
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?
“If men exhibited Christ-like leadership,
women would submit...”
Are we not commanded to submit to un-regenerated authority (Kings, parents, etc.)?
Is poor leadership the only problem with submission, or can rebellion be a factor too?
Do either gender always submit to Christ’s perfect leadership?
IS THERE GENDER AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE?
The Church today tends to hold one of two views about gender authority in marriage;
1. Wives submit to husbands.
2. Mutual submission.
One of these views is setting up it’s own authority structure in violation of God’s order. The Bible says that is a serious matter!
2 Cor. 10:4-6 (Msg) The tools of our trade aren't for marketing or manipulation, but they are for demolishing that entire massively corrupt culture. [5] We use our powerful God-tools for smashing warped philosophies, tearing down barriers erected against the truth of God, fitting every loose thought and emotion and impulse into the structure of life shaped by Christ. [6] Our tools are ready at hand for clearing the ground of every obstruction and building lives of obedience into maturity.
That means that if mutual submission is what God has ordained, any husband who exercises gender authority as a practice is violating scripture, and every wife who submits to it is disobeying God. Conversely, if gender authority is what God intends, any husband who operates in mutual submission is abdicating responsibility, and the wife is making the same shift Satan did in rejecting the authority established by God.
Please consider carefully the following questions.
1. Is your belief about gender authority in marriage primarily directed by reactions to faulty leadership, another person’s teaching, or your own careful, Biblical, Spirit-led study of this issue?
2. What do you believe about this before God?
3. What will happen or change if you make a 180 degree change in your thinking? Are the consequences of that change guiding your interpretation of gender authority, or is God’s Word?
REMEMBER; Scripture is to be our first and final guide.
Extensive teaching that opposes mutual submission is covered in ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’ by John Piper & Wayne Gruden. In ‘Beyond Sex Roles’ by Gilbert Bilezikian a typical supporting view of mutual submission is given.
The Bible states that there is gender authority in marriage, and not mutual submission. This was established before the fall.
1. Adam was created first; 1 Tim. 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
2. Adam is judged for listening to his wife; Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree...
3. Adam named Eve.
4. Throughout history and around the world, Society seems ‘hardwired’ for gender authority.
5. Old Testament Law, Biblical culture and examples give clear and consistent witness of gender authority in marriage.
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES ASSERTING
GENDER AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE
A. Ephes. 5:21-33 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
[22] Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, [26] so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. [28] So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; [29] for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, [30] because we are members of His body. [31] For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. [32] This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. [33] Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
*Please note; The full context of this passage is Ephesians 5:21 through 6:9. After the call to ‘be subject to one another’, it gives instructions on how the submission looks in the different relationships of husbands and wives, children and parents, and slaves and masters. None of these structures of authority listed look like mutual submission!
There are two contested words in this passage, ‘subject’ (submit), and ‘head’.
1. Subject; hupotasso ; to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey:— put in subjection(5), subject(16), subjected(7), subjecting(1), subjection(4), submissive(3), submit(2)
-It is always used in the context of submission to authority in the New Testament.
In love and Christ-like character we are all to humbly put others before ourselves, but that does not eradicate positions of authority! Our example Jesus, put others before himself, but without abdicating his authority.
V21 is the key verse used to justify mutual submission. Here is the crucial weakness of that argument; The context of the passage is submitting to one another, and is clearly communicated in verses 5:22-6:5, wives to husbands, children to parents, and servants to masters. It does not make sense to call for mutual submission in verse 21, and then give an extended reversal of the command in the very next verses!
How should this passage read if it were speaking of mutual submission?
-Would it not start as Jesus did, ‘You have heard... but I say...’
-Would there not be extended explanation, especially in light of the culture
then?
The example of submitting to authority is even given using the Church. Paul communicates this in v23 saying ‘as Christ is the head of the church’. He then emphasizes the truth by inverting it in v24, saying ‘as the church submits to Christ’. Can’t be made any clearer than that!
V24 Calls for submission in marriage to the full extent that the Church submits to Christ. Consider the depth and breadth of that statement! Wives, submit to husbands as the Church does to Christ… in everything that is holy, good and right!
V31 Refers to Genesis and the man leaving home and taking a wife ~ an expression of new authority being established and leadership in action. Another powerful example is the Ten Commandments where we are instructed not to covet another man’s wife.
Does the passage not clearly expresses that the attitude in marriage is sensitive, caring authority by the husband, and respectful submission by the wife?
2. kephale ; a prim. word; the head:— chief(4), hair(1), head(50), heads(19), very(1).
There is a very recent definition in a Greek Lexicon that defines kephaleo as ‘source’, instead of ‘head’. 1981 was the first time a Greek Lexicon or commentary interpreted Kaphale as ‘source’ (Word variations~head). In the plural definition of kephaleo in that same dictionary, ‘head,’ not ’source’ was used.
-A study of Greek writings in the time period this passage was written, produced over 2300 examples of Kaphale. Every one indicated leadership or authority (Wayne Grudem, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). I must ask, why would someone choose a dictionary so distant to the original writing to define a passage? Especially when there are numerous other more appropriate ones available!
When ‘source’ is clearly intended in Scripture a different word is always used.
Note that the context of ‘head’ in verse 23 is immediately preceded AND followed by a context of authority.
Ephes. 6:1-4 (NASB-U) Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2] Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), [3] so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. [4] Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord
Ephes. 6:5 (NASB-U) Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
If Ephes. 5:21 ‘and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ,’ infers mutual submission between husbands and wives, then it would also have to apply to the next two relationships of employment and children.
-It does not make sense for Paul to command mutual submission, and then instruct the submission of wives, slaves and children in the verses immediately following.
-Nowhere in Scripture is a husband ever told to submit to his wife (Or for that matter, a parent to a child, or a master to a servant).
-Peter states nearly the same ideas in a parallel passage, prefaced by the same thought. 1 Peter 2:13 (NASB) ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution‘, and then Peter gives the same guidance for slaves and wives.
Does servant-leadership or Christ-like leadership nullify authority?
Only if it nullifies Christ’s authority over the believer or a parent’s authority over a child.
Mutual submission can only be a aberration of authority.
Mutual submission either means no one is in authority, or everyone is their own boss. The end result can only be everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. We also call that anarchy. Doesn’t mutual submission also create two masters?
The only qualification that Scripture ever puts on submitting, is ‘in the Lord’. If it violates the direct instruction of God, we are to flee (David), or face the consequences (Daniel).
We also must be careful not to confuse positions of authority with walking in oneness. Just as we can misunderstand authority as nullifying value, we can misunderstand it as violating unity. God is one, yet Christ is submits to the Father without diminishing His value, or disrupting their unity.
Isn’t even good authority wrong if submission is always demeaning?
If so, you would have to see Christ’s position under the Father as demeaning. If wives submitting to husbands is demeaning, anyone under any authority is dishonored then. David submitted to Saul and Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. We don‘t see their position under authority as demeaning, but we do in how they were treated. A good parent exerts authority over their child, and we don’t consider that demeaning. At the same time a parent will even forfeit their life because of the value they place on their child.
In this passage, in several ways, a clear analogy is made between Christ and the Church, and husbands and wives in the context of authority. If you dispute gender authority, you will have to dispute that Christ is the head of the Church. Put another way, if mutual submission is what God intends, then Christ is not in authority over the Church.
CONCLUSION
This passage overtly establishes gender authority in marriage and sets attitudes for both positions. I Peter 3:1-7 virtually repeats the same principles, but with the wife responding to authority as Christ and Sarah did.
Even more important, this passage exposes the marriage relationship, in the context of gender authority, as a visual picture of relationship between Christ and the Church. What critical and powerful influence and message do we lose when we negate that picture?
B. Col. 3:18-19 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. [19] Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.
Gender authority is once again clearly commanded.
The qualification of submission to any authority is always ‘as is fitting in the Lord’ (Also in Eph. 5:22)! I understand that injunction several ways. That submission should not violate God’s commands. The attitude of submission should reflect godliness.
The caution against embitterment only makes sense in referring to a fleshly reaction to an un-submissive wife. Especially in the context of the curse against Eve.
C. Titus 2:3-5 (NASB) Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, [4] so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Here again, is clear, consistent instruction about gender authority and how to practice it. In the context of the Church, older women are to exercise reverent behavior. Reverence is only fitting as a response to positions of authority. They are to teach other women, confirming Paul‘s instructions about women teaching. Their instruction to young women in marriage specifically includes submitting to their husbands.
Significantly, this passage packages both Church and marriage in the structure of gender authority!
The end of the sentence to be subject to husbands is, “so that the Word of God will not be dishonored.” Is that not a clear, direct validation of what the Word of God teaches about gender authority in marriage?
It seems as though the Church today is more concerned about dishonoring the world’s opinion then it is God’s command!
D. 1 Peter 2:13-3:7 (NASB) Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, [14] or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. [15] For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. [16] Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. [17] Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
[18] Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. [19] For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. [20] For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
[21] For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, [22] who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; [23] and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; [24] and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. [25] For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
[3:1] In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, [2] as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. [3] Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; [4] but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. [5] For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; [6] just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
[7] You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.
The context of this passage is set in verse 13 of chapter 2; ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution...’ It then goes on to define that submission in the institutions of government, work and marriage.
3:1 ‘In the same way’ goes back to the example started in 2:21. The suffering of Christ is the immediate context! But even more profound, it clearly gives the example of Christ’s submission to unrighteous authority. The example of submission is Christ’s sacrifice for sinful man, and the incredible impact it has on those who receive it.
Peter in a clear and powerful way defines godly submission in this passage. It has the power to convert an unbelieving husband across generations and cultures. It was practiced in the Old Testament, and is carried into the New. It is a fundamental characteristic of godly women. In choosing Sarah as an example, Peter assumes the faults of Abraham, reflecting a fearless faith in God by Sarah. It connects the response of Christ to unjust authority as an example to wives in similar situations. Godly submission honors God, receiving His approval and blessing. It identifies a woman as the daughter of Sarah. It creates an inner beauty that transcends outward looks.
Verse 7 addresses an issue that only now science is discovering the tremendous implications of. Doesn’t it make sense that God would design the leader with the physical, mental and psychological characteristics to fulfill that function? Would God not also gift the ‘helpmate’ with characteristics that facilitate that purpose? Haven’t cultures throughout history intuitively recognized that truth? Our society has had to admit the ‘interruption’ that child-bearing brings to a female careers among other distinctions. Do I dare mention the impact that the monthly cycle and menopause must have in a leadership role? Peter acknowledges that difference by instructing that the wife is to be guarded as a precious delicate treasure and the husband is threatened with God’s judgment if she is exploited by his leadership.
If submission is dependant on perfection, no human authority would qualify. If marital authority is rejected because of male deficiencies, no marriage would survive, nor any authority. Rather than rejecting human authority with it’s faults, this passage affirms it in the context of government, employment (even slavery), and marriage.
It is the rejection of the message about gender authority in this passage alone, that brings home the reality of spiritual deception. How can anyone spiritually, let alone logically not only reject this passage, but even speak against it? I cannot see how a sincere person would not be struck with fear and immediate repentance if their view conflicted with just this single passage!
CONCLUSION
Submit has become the ‘S’ word in our society, and sadly, even the Church. More often than not it is taken out of the marriage vow. Mutual submission also is often the teaching from the pulpit. We twist or ignore what the above passages clearly state. Is it any wonder Christian marriages are in the same state as society’s?
Do not forget the foundation of this instruction. While wives are called to submit to husbands, men and women are both called to submit together to the lordship of Jesus Christ first and foremost.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?
“If men exhibited Christ-like leadership,
women would submit...”
Are we not commanded to submit to un-regenerated authority (Kings, parents, etc.)?
Is poor leadership the only problem with submission, or can rebellion be a factor too?
Do either gender always submit to Christ’s perfect leadership?
IS THERE GENDER AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE?
The Church today tends to hold one of two views about gender authority in marriage;
1. Wives submit to husbands.
2. Mutual submission.
One of these views is setting up it’s own authority structure in violation of God’s order. The Bible says that is a serious matter!
2 Cor. 10:4-6 (Msg) The tools of our trade aren't for marketing or manipulation, but they are for demolishing that entire massively corrupt culture. [5] We use our powerful God-tools for smashing warped philosophies, tearing down barriers erected against the truth of God, fitting every loose thought and emotion and impulse into the structure of life shaped by Christ. [6] Our tools are ready at hand for clearing the ground of every obstruction and building lives of obedience into maturity.
That means that if mutual submission is what God has ordained, any husband who exercises gender authority as a practice is violating scripture, and every wife who submits to it is disobeying God. Conversely, if gender authority is what God intends, any husband who operates in mutual submission is abdicating responsibility, and the wife is making the same shift Satan did in rejecting the authority established by God.
Please consider carefully the following questions.
1. Is your belief about gender authority in marriage primarily directed by reactions to faulty leadership, another person’s teaching, or your own careful, Biblical, Spirit-led study of this issue?
2. What do you believe about this before God?
3. What will happen or change if you make a 180 degree change in your thinking? Are the consequences of that change guiding your interpretation of gender authority, or is God’s Word?
REMEMBER; Scripture is to be our first and final guide.
Extensive teaching that opposes mutual submission is covered in ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’ by John Piper & Wayne Gruden. In ‘Beyond Sex Roles’ by Gilbert Bilezikian a typical supporting view of mutual submission is given.
The Bible states that there is gender authority in marriage, and not mutual submission. This was established before the fall.
1. Adam was created first; 1 Tim. 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
2. Adam is judged for listening to his wife; Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree...
3. Adam named Eve.
4. Throughout history and around the world, Society seems ‘hardwired’ for gender authority.
5. Old Testament Law, Biblical culture and examples give clear and consistent witness of gender authority in marriage.
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES ASSERTING
GENDER AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE
A. Ephes. 5:21-33 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
[22] Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, [26] so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. [28] So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; [29] for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, [30] because we are members of His body. [31] For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. [32] This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. [33] Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
*Please note; The full context of this passage is Ephesians 5:21 through 6:9. After the call to ‘be subject to one another’, it gives instructions on how the submission looks in the different relationships of husbands and wives, children and parents, and slaves and masters. None of these structures of authority listed look like mutual submission!
There are two contested words in this passage, ‘subject’ (submit), and ‘head’.
1. Subject; hupotasso ; to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey:— put in subjection(5), subject(16), subjected(7), subjecting(1), subjection(4), submissive(3), submit(2)
-It is always used in the context of submission to authority in the New Testament.
In love and Christ-like character we are all to humbly put others before ourselves, but that does not eradicate positions of authority! Our example Jesus, put others before himself, but without abdicating his authority.
V21 is the key verse used to justify mutual submission. Here is the crucial weakness of that argument; The context of the passage is submitting to one another, and is clearly communicated in verses 5:22-6:5, wives to husbands, children to parents, and servants to masters. It does not make sense to call for mutual submission in verse 21, and then give an extended reversal of the command in the very next verses!
How should this passage read if it were speaking of mutual submission?
-Would it not start as Jesus did, ‘You have heard... but I say...’
-Would there not be extended explanation, especially in light of the culture
then?
The example of submitting to authority is even given using the Church. Paul communicates this in v23 saying ‘as Christ is the head of the church’. He then emphasizes the truth by inverting it in v24, saying ‘as the church submits to Christ’. Can’t be made any clearer than that!
V24 Calls for submission in marriage to the full extent that the Church submits to Christ. Consider the depth and breadth of that statement! Wives, submit to husbands as the Church does to Christ… in everything that is holy, good and right!
V31 Refers to Genesis and the man leaving home and taking a wife ~ an expression of new authority being established and leadership in action. Another powerful example is the Ten Commandments where we are instructed not to covet another man’s wife.
Does the passage not clearly expresses that the attitude in marriage is sensitive, caring authority by the husband, and respectful submission by the wife?
2. kephale ; a prim. word; the head:— chief(4), hair(1), head(50), heads(19), very(1).
There is a very recent definition in a Greek Lexicon that defines kephaleo as ‘source’, instead of ‘head’. 1981 was the first time a Greek Lexicon or commentary interpreted Kaphale as ‘source’ (Word variations~head). In the plural definition of kephaleo in that same dictionary, ‘head,’ not ’source’ was used.
-A study of Greek writings in the time period this passage was written, produced over 2300 examples of Kaphale. Every one indicated leadership or authority (Wayne Grudem, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). I must ask, why would someone choose a dictionary so distant to the original writing to define a passage? Especially when there are numerous other more appropriate ones available!
When ‘source’ is clearly intended in Scripture a different word is always used.
Note that the context of ‘head’ in verse 23 is immediately preceded AND followed by a context of authority.
Ephes. 6:1-4 (NASB-U) Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2] Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), [3] so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. [4] Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord
Ephes. 6:5 (NASB-U) Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
If Ephes. 5:21 ‘and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ,’ infers mutual submission between husbands and wives, then it would also have to apply to the next two relationships of employment and children.
-It does not make sense for Paul to command mutual submission, and then instruct the submission of wives, slaves and children in the verses immediately following.
-Nowhere in Scripture is a husband ever told to submit to his wife (Or for that matter, a parent to a child, or a master to a servant).
-Peter states nearly the same ideas in a parallel passage, prefaced by the same thought. 1 Peter 2:13 (NASB) ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution‘, and then Peter gives the same guidance for slaves and wives.
Does servant-leadership or Christ-like leadership nullify authority?
Only if it nullifies Christ’s authority over the believer or a parent’s authority over a child.
Mutual submission can only be a aberration of authority.
Mutual submission either means no one is in authority, or everyone is their own boss. The end result can only be everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. We also call that anarchy. Doesn’t mutual submission also create two masters?
The only qualification that Scripture ever puts on submitting, is ‘in the Lord’. If it violates the direct instruction of God, we are to flee (David), or face the consequences (Daniel).
We also must be careful not to confuse positions of authority with walking in oneness. Just as we can misunderstand authority as nullifying value, we can misunderstand it as violating unity. God is one, yet Christ is submits to the Father without diminishing His value, or disrupting their unity.
Isn’t even good authority wrong if submission is always demeaning?
If so, you would have to see Christ’s position under the Father as demeaning. If wives submitting to husbands is demeaning, anyone under any authority is dishonored then. David submitted to Saul and Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. We don‘t see their position under authority as demeaning, but we do in how they were treated. A good parent exerts authority over their child, and we don’t consider that demeaning. At the same time a parent will even forfeit their life because of the value they place on their child.
In this passage, in several ways, a clear analogy is made between Christ and the Church, and husbands and wives in the context of authority. If you dispute gender authority, you will have to dispute that Christ is the head of the Church. Put another way, if mutual submission is what God intends, then Christ is not in authority over the Church.
CONCLUSION
This passage overtly establishes gender authority in marriage and sets attitudes for both positions. I Peter 3:1-7 virtually repeats the same principles, but with the wife responding to authority as Christ and Sarah did.
Even more important, this passage exposes the marriage relationship, in the context of gender authority, as a visual picture of relationship between Christ and the Church. What critical and powerful influence and message do we lose when we negate that picture?
B. Col. 3:18-19 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. [19] Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.
Gender authority is once again clearly commanded.
The qualification of submission to any authority is always ‘as is fitting in the Lord’ (Also in Eph. 5:22)! I understand that injunction several ways. That submission should not violate God’s commands. The attitude of submission should reflect godliness.
The caution against embitterment only makes sense in referring to a fleshly reaction to an un-submissive wife. Especially in the context of the curse against Eve.
C. Titus 2:3-5 (NASB) Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, [4] so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Here again, is clear, consistent instruction about gender authority and how to practice it. In the context of the Church, older women are to exercise reverent behavior. Reverence is only fitting as a response to positions of authority. They are to teach other women, confirming Paul‘s instructions about women teaching. Their instruction to young women in marriage specifically includes submitting to their husbands.
Significantly, this passage packages both Church and marriage in the structure of gender authority!
The end of the sentence to be subject to husbands is, “so that the Word of God will not be dishonored.” Is that not a clear, direct validation of what the Word of God teaches about gender authority in marriage?
It seems as though the Church today is more concerned about dishonoring the world’s opinion then it is God’s command!
D. 1 Peter 2:13-3:7 (NASB) Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, [14] or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. [15] For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. [16] Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. [17] Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
[18] Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. [19] For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. [20] For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
[21] For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, [22] who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; [23] and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; [24] and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. [25] For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
[3:1] In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, [2] as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. [3] Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; [4] but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. [5] For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; [6] just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
[7] You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.
The context of this passage is set in verse 13 of chapter 2; ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution...’ It then goes on to define that submission in the institutions of government, work and marriage.
3:1 ‘In the same way’ goes back to the example started in 2:21. The suffering of Christ is the immediate context! But even more profound, it clearly gives the example of Christ’s submission to unrighteous authority. The example of submission is Christ’s sacrifice for sinful man, and the incredible impact it has on those who receive it.
Peter in a clear and powerful way defines godly submission in this passage. It has the power to convert an unbelieving husband across generations and cultures. It was practiced in the Old Testament, and is carried into the New. It is a fundamental characteristic of godly women. In choosing Sarah as an example, Peter assumes the faults of Abraham, reflecting a fearless faith in God by Sarah. It connects the response of Christ to unjust authority as an example to wives in similar situations. Godly submission honors God, receiving His approval and blessing. It identifies a woman as the daughter of Sarah. It creates an inner beauty that transcends outward looks.
Verse 7 addresses an issue that only now science is discovering the tremendous implications of. Doesn’t it make sense that God would design the leader with the physical, mental and psychological characteristics to fulfill that function? Would God not also gift the ‘helpmate’ with characteristics that facilitate that purpose? Haven’t cultures throughout history intuitively recognized that truth? Our society has had to admit the ‘interruption’ that child-bearing brings to a female careers among other distinctions. Do I dare mention the impact that the monthly cycle and menopause must have in a leadership role? Peter acknowledges that difference by instructing that the wife is to be guarded as a precious delicate treasure and the husband is threatened with God’s judgment if she is exploited by his leadership.
If submission is dependant on perfection, no human authority would qualify. If marital authority is rejected because of male deficiencies, no marriage would survive, nor any authority. Rather than rejecting human authority with it’s faults, this passage affirms it in the context of government, employment (even slavery), and marriage.
It is the rejection of the message about gender authority in this passage alone, that brings home the reality of spiritual deception. How can anyone spiritually, let alone logically not only reject this passage, but even speak against it? I cannot see how a sincere person would not be struck with fear and immediate repentance if their view conflicted with just this single passage!
CONCLUSION
Submit has become the ‘S’ word in our society, and sadly, even the Church. More often than not it is taken out of the marriage vow. Mutual submission also is often the teaching from the pulpit. We twist or ignore what the above passages clearly state. Is it any wonder Christian marriages are in the same state as society’s?
Do not forget the foundation of this instruction. While wives are called to submit to husbands, men and women are both called to submit together to the lordship of Jesus Christ first and foremost.
CHAPTER 7
If there were a segment of only women in your church that needed specific help, what gender should the group be made up of to meet that need?
Acts 6:1-4 (NIV) In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. [2] So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. [3] Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them [4] and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
It is profoundly striking that the very first example of a deacon role, in a setting that begged female participation, only men were chosen! Not surprisingly, the event is consistent with what Jesus did and what the instructions for leadership in the Church clearly indicate.
GENDER AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
We will look in this chapter at what the Bible says about women in the place of Elder or Deacon, or in a position of authority over a man in the Church setting.
WHY IS THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT?
1. If a Church operates with a male only authority structure, and it is against what God has established for His Church, then that is rebellion and idolatry. If those who believe the opposite are trying to establish a false structure, the same applies.
2. If I am restricting what God has called women to, I am failing in the primary assignment of biblical leadership; to prepare people for works of ministry. On the other hand, if you are putting women into places of leadership where they are only called and gifted to support and be a help-mate, and removing the responsibility of men who are assigned and gifted to lead, you are setting up some deep frustrations and destructive falls. I believe that some of the gender frustrations and abuse we witness today are consequences of this very issue.
A. Acts 18:24-26 ( NIV ) Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Two questions have been raised by this passage;
1. Does Priscilla being mentioned before Aquila indicate her leadership? At the most we can only guess. However in I Corinthians 16:19 Aquila is mentioned first. At the least, it conflicts with specific instructions regarding gender authority both in the marriage and the Church.
2. Is this passage asserting that Pricilla was ‘teaching’ Apollos? Again, we can only speculate. I think there is a difference between private conversation and public teaching by a woman. I have deeply appreciated conversations with my wife and other woman about the things of God. Also, the idea that she was a ‘helpmate’ to her husband carries the weight of God’s design and scriptural instruction, and certainly involves valid participation within that framework.
B. Romans 16:1-2 (NASB) I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; [2] that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
The contention of this passage is whether or not Phoebe is referred to as a ‘deacon’ in the sense of position and not just activity. The question comes because the Greek word for ‘servant’ is used for the position of Deacon in the Church.
1. The Greek tense used in Romans 16:1 is not the same as used in I Timothy 3:8.
2. The context of the first 16 verses of Romans 16 is thanking ‘workers’ in the Church. The use of the common word ‘servant’ is not unusual in that context, and does not stand out as a position of office in this setting. Again, we can only speculate, but at the expense of ignoring specific instruction and examples against the idea that it was a place of formal authority.
3. You cannot focus on ‘servant’, and leave out Paul’s play on ‘helper’, which we can also speculate refers to Phoebe being a ‘spiritual wife’ to the Church body.
4. Please note also that Paul validates and specifically honors the service Phoebe provided.
CONCLUSION
A passage that is arguable speculation at the most, can in no way override the instructions about, and other examples of, the office of Deacon that consistently limit the office to males.
C. 1 Cor. 11:1-16 (NASB-U) Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But 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. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
The core of this passage is bracketed by;
verse 1 The command to be imitators of Christ.
verse 2 Praise for holding firmly to the traditions Paul taught.
verse 16 Concludes with the declaration that these things are the
common practice of the Church.
How many instructions have this kind of emphasis? Do these instructions sound like an option, let alone something that is not very important? Why would God inspire instructions that we brush off as ‘culturally not for us’ with this kind of emphasis?
Verse 3 is the foundational truth for the instructions that follow.
[3] 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.
Yet today it is deliberately ignored and treated as though it is a unnecessary part of Scripture.
1. There is usually no debate that Christ willingly submits himself to God without diminishing His intrinsic value and equality with God. In other words, submission does not demean or indicate inferior value. 1 Cor. 15:25, 28 (NIV) “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet... When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
Yet the second we address the second part about man being the head of woman, the cry is that submission demeans and diminishes the worth of woman. If it does for woman, then it also must for Christ.
2. The connecting in verse 3 of gender authority with God and Christ’s authority eliminates this passage from being simply a cultural context that might not apply to us today.
[4] Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
In the context of this verse, the ‘head’ is a symbol of authority. Man’s authority is visually symbolized by the uncovered head. Paul states that a man is ‘out of place’ when he even symbolizes abdicating his authority.
[5] But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. [6] For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head (symbol of submission).
Please note that this praying and prophesying by a woman is occurring publicly in the Church. It is however practiced with a symbolic submission to authority.
Once again, Scripture declares that woman is the glory of man. Our society hasn’t viewed head covering as a symbol of authority for some time. It may be the wearing of pants (“Who wears the pants in this family.”), even though that is also disappearing as a symbol of submission.
At the least, I think this passage indicates the importance of visual authority and submission. The bottom line is this; Paul strongly encourages a symbolic message of authority by men and submission by women in the Church!
The reasons for this gender authority is explained next;
[7] For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Man represents an image of the authority of God! How can we diminish or distort a message like that so brazenly? Do we disobey and offend God so we won’t possibly offend women?
“Woman is the glory of man”, says that God intends for the wife to be a badge of honor for the husband. It also indicates how important honor from a wife is to the husband.
[8] For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
Here Paul uses ‘source’ not to set aside authority, but rather to establish it! Man has gender authority because woman was made from him.
[9] for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
The original purpose of creating the woman as a helpmate for man at creation is connected to the New Testament context as a basis for gender authority.
Genesis 2:18-24 (NASB) Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh
Paul establishes gender authority based on the purpose of creation (Note that this is before the fall.). He repeats the same reasoning in I Tim 2:8-15!
[10] Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Literally, “...woman ought to have authority on her head...”
I can only guess that there is a communication in the heavenly realm about submission to authority. Possibly the example that as wives submit to husbands, angels submit to God.
[11] However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. [12] For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Here Paul brings an attitude and balance check. In the Lord, we need each other having different but God designed complimentary purposes. It is good if both men and women remember that!
[13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
It seems to me that Paul is indicating a God-given moral sense about gender authority (’Judge for yourselves’, or ‘check your conscience‘), and the truth of that is reflected in nature. His argument at this point goes way outside a cultural context.
[16] But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
What is the ‘tradition’ we are called to observe in verse sixteen? What is the purpose that translates to our time? It is simply this; Our reflection both in and under authority is extremely important. That God-established authority is expressed even in appearance! While the expression of authority may vary according to culture, the principle remains in place no matter what the culture.
If a husband has authority in the home, would it not be very awkward to not have it in the Church, or outside the home? The context of this instruction is given in the Church.
CONCLUSION
Paul is very clear about the subject of this passage; “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.” He then goes on to give the reasons for that truth and calls for visible evidence of gender authority being practiced. He then affirms the value of both men and woman, and concludes by calling for agreement without contention.
The following passage is one of the most difficult passages on this issue. Some find it so much so, that they ignore it, even though Paul gives one of the strongest admonitions to obey it of any instructions. Others isolate it, and apply it in it’s strongest (and sometimes most harsh) possible interpretation. I suggest that it makes perfect sense in the context of which it is presented.
D. 1 Cor. 14:26-40 (NIV) What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. [27] If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. [28] If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
[29] Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
[30] And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. [31] For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. [32] The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. [33] For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
This context of instructions for public prophecy make the most sense for understanding the instructions starting in v33b.
[33b] As in all the congregations of the saints, [34] women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
‘As in all the congregations’ assigns a universal application in the Church of God.
The reference to ‘as the Law says,’ connects the same principles and understanding of this issue in the Old Testament to New Testament practice in the Church. It not only upholds the classic understanding of gender authority, it dismisses the idea of a New Testament change occurring!
[35] If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful (Reference to I Cor. 11:13.) for a woman to speak in the church.
I suggest that this command refers to the public judging of a prophecy. This then is only an application of woman being prohibited from public teaching. Also, would it be honoring or disgracing a husband, if his wife disagreed with his prophecy in public? How about a woman disagreeing with a male leader? It cannot mean a woman is not allowed to speak at all, since we have seen that prophecy and prayer by woman are allowed in other passages.
Some argue that this passage is referencing a situation unique to the Corinthian Church. They surmise that uneducated women were disrupting the service by talking, so Paul admonishes them to ‘be silent’. I reject that argument for these simple reasons;
1. It does not fit the context. Paul states the reason for the instruction, “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.”
2. If the instruction was specific to a local situation, it makes the passage useless to our time (“all scripture is profitable”).
3. It makes Paul’s response extreme and harsh, if not ridiculous. Imagine sitting in the setting this argument establishes, and hearing Paul respond as Scripture states.
4. The instruction on women remaining silent in the Church mirrors almost exactly the instructions given in I Timothy 2:9-15. There the passage prohibits the teaching of doctrine and references Creation and the Fall as the basis.
[36] Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? [37] If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. [38] If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
Notice how strong the admonition is, immediately following this instruction. Paul even instructs us on how to respond to someone who rebels against this command! What a condemnation of so many teachers today on this subject!
[39] Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [40] But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
This conclusion clearly ties the instructions on prophesy and tongues with the context of instructions about female participation.
CONCLUSION
While the focal point of this passage is instructions on prophecy, the principle of honoring gender authority is part of the basis of exercising ‘fitting and orderly’ worship.
E. 1 Tim. 2:1-3:15 (NASB-U) First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, [2] for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. [7] For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
[8] Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
Paul concludes this call to prayer with instructions specific to men, followed by instructions to women. Please note the reference to ‘all who are in authority’ in verse 2.
[9] Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, [10] but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. [11] A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
This is consistent with the instructions given in I Cor. 11 & 14.
Note the emphasis and spectrum Paul covers. “Entire submissiveness”, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”, and “but to remain quiet.” It seems to me that for the second time, Paul wants to leave no question about gender authority in the Church setting. The action being prohibited is public teaching by women. The principle is not exercising authority over men.
How have we come to the place where this command is so rejected and disobeyed? It seems to me that we approach this passage the same way Satan did Eve. But instead of, “Did God really say, do not eat of this tree?”, we say, “Did God really say, ‘entire submissiveness’ and ‘not exercise authority over man‘?” Yes He did.
The reasons for this command follow;
[13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
Here is the second time (I Cor. 11) the order of creation is used as a basis for gender authority.
Note that the reasoning precedes the Fall, and supersedes culture.
[14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The deception of Eve by the serpent is the third reason for gender authority (Order of creation and purpose are the first two.).
[15] But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Here in the New Testament, the Garden of Eden judgment of woman being under the authority of their husband is directly connected to child-bearing!
The qualifications for formal positions of authority in the Church are immediately shared in the very next chapter. How can it be said that after the above instructions and those in I Corinthians, women can now be placed in positions of authority over men in the Church?
[3:1] It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. [2] An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. [4] He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity [5] (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), [6] and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. [7] And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
If gender authority is in place in the church, there is no struggle to distinguish when Paul is speaking to men or women or both regarding the offices of elder and deacon.
[8] Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, [9] but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. [11] Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. [12] Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. [13] For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
[14] I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; [15] but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
The qualifications indicate a male, in keeping with the first practice of deacon in Acts, and every single clear example of leadership being established by Christ, the Disciples and Paul!
Conclusion
Paul concludes this portion of the letter by stating, “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” I understand that to mean the Church is to be the pillar and support of truth. I think the instructions that proceed that statement are especially key truths to obey! Yet we turn around and violate the very context that command is given in!
F. Titus 1:5-9 (NASB-U) For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, [6] namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. [7] For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, [8] but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, [9] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Again, the role of an elder indicates a male position.
G. Titus 2:1-5 (NASB-U) But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. [2] Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.
[3] Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, [4] so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
There is not only a clear separation between instructions to men and women, but older women are even instructed to pass on the principle and practice of gender authority within the context of teaching younger women!
CONCLUSION
In every instruction, and every practice, we have seen that the role of deacon and elder specify a male. Just a face reading of these passages communicate a clear, consistent message. Other passages that are connected to gender authority in marriage and Church structure consistently replicate the same message. The practices in the Old and New Testament, with very little question, are uniform. Common sense tells us that male leadership in the home would become impossibly convoluted if it were reversed in the Church. The assertion that believers for centuries have been radically and horribly misled in this issue is so ridiculous, it makes even the idea seem demonic.
My encouragement to women is this; We must remember that whatever limits we think the historic belief and these passages place, they did not hinder the women of the Bible from being and doing everything that God intended and everything that brings life and godliness.
Acts 6:1-4 (NIV) In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. [2] So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. [3] Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them [4] and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
It is profoundly striking that the very first example of a deacon role, in a setting that begged female participation, only men were chosen! Not surprisingly, the event is consistent with what Jesus did and what the instructions for leadership in the Church clearly indicate.
GENDER AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH
We will look in this chapter at what the Bible says about women in the place of Elder or Deacon, or in a position of authority over a man in the Church setting.
WHY IS THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT?
1. If a Church operates with a male only authority structure, and it is against what God has established for His Church, then that is rebellion and idolatry. If those who believe the opposite are trying to establish a false structure, the same applies.
2. If I am restricting what God has called women to, I am failing in the primary assignment of biblical leadership; to prepare people for works of ministry. On the other hand, if you are putting women into places of leadership where they are only called and gifted to support and be a help-mate, and removing the responsibility of men who are assigned and gifted to lead, you are setting up some deep frustrations and destructive falls. I believe that some of the gender frustrations and abuse we witness today are consequences of this very issue.
A. Acts 18:24-26 ( NIV ) Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Two questions have been raised by this passage;
1. Does Priscilla being mentioned before Aquila indicate her leadership? At the most we can only guess. However in I Corinthians 16:19 Aquila is mentioned first. At the least, it conflicts with specific instructions regarding gender authority both in the marriage and the Church.
2. Is this passage asserting that Pricilla was ‘teaching’ Apollos? Again, we can only speculate. I think there is a difference between private conversation and public teaching by a woman. I have deeply appreciated conversations with my wife and other woman about the things of God. Also, the idea that she was a ‘helpmate’ to her husband carries the weight of God’s design and scriptural instruction, and certainly involves valid participation within that framework.
B. Romans 16:1-2 (NASB) I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; [2] that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
The contention of this passage is whether or not Phoebe is referred to as a ‘deacon’ in the sense of position and not just activity. The question comes because the Greek word for ‘servant’ is used for the position of Deacon in the Church.
1. The Greek tense used in Romans 16:1 is not the same as used in I Timothy 3:8.
2. The context of the first 16 verses of Romans 16 is thanking ‘workers’ in the Church. The use of the common word ‘servant’ is not unusual in that context, and does not stand out as a position of office in this setting. Again, we can only speculate, but at the expense of ignoring specific instruction and examples against the idea that it was a place of formal authority.
3. You cannot focus on ‘servant’, and leave out Paul’s play on ‘helper’, which we can also speculate refers to Phoebe being a ‘spiritual wife’ to the Church body.
4. Please note also that Paul validates and specifically honors the service Phoebe provided.
CONCLUSION
A passage that is arguable speculation at the most, can in no way override the instructions about, and other examples of, the office of Deacon that consistently limit the office to males.
C. 1 Cor. 11:1-16 (NASB-U) Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But 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. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
The core of this passage is bracketed by;
verse 1 The command to be imitators of Christ.
verse 2 Praise for holding firmly to the traditions Paul taught.
verse 16 Concludes with the declaration that these things are the
common practice of the Church.
How many instructions have this kind of emphasis? Do these instructions sound like an option, let alone something that is not very important? Why would God inspire instructions that we brush off as ‘culturally not for us’ with this kind of emphasis?
Verse 3 is the foundational truth for the instructions that follow.
[3] 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.
Yet today it is deliberately ignored and treated as though it is a unnecessary part of Scripture.
1. There is usually no debate that Christ willingly submits himself to God without diminishing His intrinsic value and equality with God. In other words, submission does not demean or indicate inferior value. 1 Cor. 15:25, 28 (NIV) “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet... When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
Yet the second we address the second part about man being the head of woman, the cry is that submission demeans and diminishes the worth of woman. If it does for woman, then it also must for Christ.
2. The connecting in verse 3 of gender authority with God and Christ’s authority eliminates this passage from being simply a cultural context that might not apply to us today.
[4] Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
In the context of this verse, the ‘head’ is a symbol of authority. Man’s authority is visually symbolized by the uncovered head. Paul states that a man is ‘out of place’ when he even symbolizes abdicating his authority.
[5] But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. [6] For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head (symbol of submission).
Please note that this praying and prophesying by a woman is occurring publicly in the Church. It is however practiced with a symbolic submission to authority.
Once again, Scripture declares that woman is the glory of man. Our society hasn’t viewed head covering as a symbol of authority for some time. It may be the wearing of pants (“Who wears the pants in this family.”), even though that is also disappearing as a symbol of submission.
At the least, I think this passage indicates the importance of visual authority and submission. The bottom line is this; Paul strongly encourages a symbolic message of authority by men and submission by women in the Church!
The reasons for this gender authority is explained next;
[7] For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Man represents an image of the authority of God! How can we diminish or distort a message like that so brazenly? Do we disobey and offend God so we won’t possibly offend women?
“Woman is the glory of man”, says that God intends for the wife to be a badge of honor for the husband. It also indicates how important honor from a wife is to the husband.
[8] For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
Here Paul uses ‘source’ not to set aside authority, but rather to establish it! Man has gender authority because woman was made from him.
[9] for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
The original purpose of creating the woman as a helpmate for man at creation is connected to the New Testament context as a basis for gender authority.
Genesis 2:18-24 (NASB) Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh
Paul establishes gender authority based on the purpose of creation (Note that this is before the fall.). He repeats the same reasoning in I Tim 2:8-15!
[10] Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Literally, “...woman ought to have authority on her head...”
I can only guess that there is a communication in the heavenly realm about submission to authority. Possibly the example that as wives submit to husbands, angels submit to God.
[11] However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. [12] For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Here Paul brings an attitude and balance check. In the Lord, we need each other having different but God designed complimentary purposes. It is good if both men and women remember that!
[13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
It seems to me that Paul is indicating a God-given moral sense about gender authority (’Judge for yourselves’, or ‘check your conscience‘), and the truth of that is reflected in nature. His argument at this point goes way outside a cultural context.
[16] But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
What is the ‘tradition’ we are called to observe in verse sixteen? What is the purpose that translates to our time? It is simply this; Our reflection both in and under authority is extremely important. That God-established authority is expressed even in appearance! While the expression of authority may vary according to culture, the principle remains in place no matter what the culture.
If a husband has authority in the home, would it not be very awkward to not have it in the Church, or outside the home? The context of this instruction is given in the Church.
CONCLUSION
Paul is very clear about the subject of this passage; “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.” He then goes on to give the reasons for that truth and calls for visible evidence of gender authority being practiced. He then affirms the value of both men and woman, and concludes by calling for agreement without contention.
The following passage is one of the most difficult passages on this issue. Some find it so much so, that they ignore it, even though Paul gives one of the strongest admonitions to obey it of any instructions. Others isolate it, and apply it in it’s strongest (and sometimes most harsh) possible interpretation. I suggest that it makes perfect sense in the context of which it is presented.
D. 1 Cor. 14:26-40 (NIV) What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. [27] If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. [28] If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
[29] Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
[30] And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. [31] For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. [32] The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. [33] For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
This context of instructions for public prophecy make the most sense for understanding the instructions starting in v33b.
[33b] As in all the congregations of the saints, [34] women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
‘As in all the congregations’ assigns a universal application in the Church of God.
The reference to ‘as the Law says,’ connects the same principles and understanding of this issue in the Old Testament to New Testament practice in the Church. It not only upholds the classic understanding of gender authority, it dismisses the idea of a New Testament change occurring!
[35] If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful (Reference to I Cor. 11:13.) for a woman to speak in the church.
I suggest that this command refers to the public judging of a prophecy. This then is only an application of woman being prohibited from public teaching. Also, would it be honoring or disgracing a husband, if his wife disagreed with his prophecy in public? How about a woman disagreeing with a male leader? It cannot mean a woman is not allowed to speak at all, since we have seen that prophecy and prayer by woman are allowed in other passages.
Some argue that this passage is referencing a situation unique to the Corinthian Church. They surmise that uneducated women were disrupting the service by talking, so Paul admonishes them to ‘be silent’. I reject that argument for these simple reasons;
1. It does not fit the context. Paul states the reason for the instruction, “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.”
2. If the instruction was specific to a local situation, it makes the passage useless to our time (“all scripture is profitable”).
3. It makes Paul’s response extreme and harsh, if not ridiculous. Imagine sitting in the setting this argument establishes, and hearing Paul respond as Scripture states.
4. The instruction on women remaining silent in the Church mirrors almost exactly the instructions given in I Timothy 2:9-15. There the passage prohibits the teaching of doctrine and references Creation and the Fall as the basis.
[36] Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? [37] If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. [38] If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
Notice how strong the admonition is, immediately following this instruction. Paul even instructs us on how to respond to someone who rebels against this command! What a condemnation of so many teachers today on this subject!
[39] Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [40] But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
This conclusion clearly ties the instructions on prophesy and tongues with the context of instructions about female participation.
CONCLUSION
While the focal point of this passage is instructions on prophecy, the principle of honoring gender authority is part of the basis of exercising ‘fitting and orderly’ worship.
E. 1 Tim. 2:1-3:15 (NASB-U) First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, [2] for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. [7] For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
[8] Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
Paul concludes this call to prayer with instructions specific to men, followed by instructions to women. Please note the reference to ‘all who are in authority’ in verse 2.
[9] Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, [10] but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. [11] A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
This is consistent with the instructions given in I Cor. 11 & 14.
Note the emphasis and spectrum Paul covers. “Entire submissiveness”, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”, and “but to remain quiet.” It seems to me that for the second time, Paul wants to leave no question about gender authority in the Church setting. The action being prohibited is public teaching by women. The principle is not exercising authority over men.
How have we come to the place where this command is so rejected and disobeyed? It seems to me that we approach this passage the same way Satan did Eve. But instead of, “Did God really say, do not eat of this tree?”, we say, “Did God really say, ‘entire submissiveness’ and ‘not exercise authority over man‘?” Yes He did.
The reasons for this command follow;
[13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
Here is the second time (I Cor. 11) the order of creation is used as a basis for gender authority.
Note that the reasoning precedes the Fall, and supersedes culture.
[14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The deception of Eve by the serpent is the third reason for gender authority (Order of creation and purpose are the first two.).
[15] But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Here in the New Testament, the Garden of Eden judgment of woman being under the authority of their husband is directly connected to child-bearing!
The qualifications for formal positions of authority in the Church are immediately shared in the very next chapter. How can it be said that after the above instructions and those in I Corinthians, women can now be placed in positions of authority over men in the Church?
[3:1] It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. [2] An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. [4] He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity [5] (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), [6] and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. [7] And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
If gender authority is in place in the church, there is no struggle to distinguish when Paul is speaking to men or women or both regarding the offices of elder and deacon.
[8] Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, [9] but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. [11] Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. [12] Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. [13] For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
[14] I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; [15] but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
The qualifications indicate a male, in keeping with the first practice of deacon in Acts, and every single clear example of leadership being established by Christ, the Disciples and Paul!
Conclusion
Paul concludes this portion of the letter by stating, “so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” I understand that to mean the Church is to be the pillar and support of truth. I think the instructions that proceed that statement are especially key truths to obey! Yet we turn around and violate the very context that command is given in!
F. Titus 1:5-9 (NASB-U) For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, [6] namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. [7] For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, [8] but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, [9] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Again, the role of an elder indicates a male position.
G. Titus 2:1-5 (NASB-U) But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. [2] Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.
[3] Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, [4] so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
There is not only a clear separation between instructions to men and women, but older women are even instructed to pass on the principle and practice of gender authority within the context of teaching younger women!
CONCLUSION
In every instruction, and every practice, we have seen that the role of deacon and elder specify a male. Just a face reading of these passages communicate a clear, consistent message. Other passages that are connected to gender authority in marriage and Church structure consistently replicate the same message. The practices in the Old and New Testament, with very little question, are uniform. Common sense tells us that male leadership in the home would become impossibly convoluted if it were reversed in the Church. The assertion that believers for centuries have been radically and horribly misled in this issue is so ridiculous, it makes even the idea seem demonic.
My encouragement to women is this; We must remember that whatever limits we think the historic belief and these passages place, they did not hinder the women of the Bible from being and doing everything that God intended and everything that brings life and godliness.
EPILOGUE
What we are left with after looking through the whole Bible at every key passage, in context, of gender authority is this;
1. A consistent principle of gender authority through the whole Bible.
2. Unity of principle and practice between the Old and New Testaments.
3. A strong and clear consistency between the instructions in Scripture, and the practice of Scripture, even with the difficult passages.
4. Consistency in gender authority in both the home and the Church.
5. A holding to the traditional interpretation of gender authority, affirming that the Holy Spirit has been faithful to lead us into all truth.
6. An ability to read every key passage from the Bible alone, and walk away with a consistent and reasonably accurate understanding of the teaching and practice of gender authority.
7. While we find a consistent prohibition against women in authority over men, we also find powerful examples of God’s ability to use people outside formal authority.
It is very important to note that the ministry of Jesus shows the incredible power of anointing and calling, apart from positions of authority. During his entire earthly ministry, Christ never stepped into the formal positions of authority he possessed! While he possessed ultimate authority, he served with that power set aside.
I have a challenge for those who still reject what is presented here;
Rewrite these passages in a way that honors the Greek, in a way that makes sense in the context they are found, and yet communicates other than gender authority. Show me a honest translation of all these passages that clearly and consistently communicates equal submission and women in formal positions of authority.
OBEYING WHAT GOD’S WORD SAYS
Oswald Chambers, “We don’t consciously and deliberately disobey God—we simply don’t listen to Him. God has given His commands to us, but we pay no attention to them—not because of willful disobedience, but because we do not truly love and respect Him. “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). We show how little love we have for God by preferring to listen to His servants rather than to Him. We like to listen to personal testimonies, but we don’t want God Himself to speak to us. Why are we so terrified for God to speak to us? It is because we know that when God speaks we must either do what He asks or tell Him we will not obey. But if it is simply one of God’s servants speaking to us, we feel obedience is optional, not imperative. We respond by saying, “Well, that’s only your own idea, even though I don’t deny that what you said is probably God’s truth.”
NOT RE-INTERPRETING WHAT GOD’S WORD SAYS
1 Cor. 4:6 (NIV) ...so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
“No one has the right to adjust the gospel or revise God’s plan for his church. Those precious things are not yours or mine; they are God’s. We need to stop fussing with them. We need to submit to the heavenly design laid down long ago.” Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala
2 Peter 2:1-22 (NIV) But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. [2] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. [3] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; [6] if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [7] and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men [8] (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)-- [9] if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. [10] This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; [11] yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. [12] But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
[13] They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. [14] With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood! [15] They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. [16] But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
[17] These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. [18] For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. [19] They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. [20] If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. [21] It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. [22] Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
APPENDIX 1
INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
I. REVELATION
-God has made Himself known
-divine origin and cause
II. INSPIRATION
-God has made Himself known in words
-God inspired men to write His words
*‘God-breathed’
-All Scripture is inspired
-Because it is divine/inspired, it is inerrant
III. AUTHORITY
-Because God’s word is inspired and inerrant, it alone
has final authority over man
THREE LEVELS OF CRITICISM
1. Lower Criticism; Word translation
2. Higher Criticism; Authorship, Date, Character of Book
3. Highest Criticism; Letter AND spirit of the word...
-Isaiah 66:2 "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
-Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
-1 Cor. 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, [13] which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
GUIDES FOR INTERPRETATION
1. Am I Holy Spirit guided?
2. What principle is being proclaimed?
3. What principle is being practiced?
4. What is the context?
5. Is my interpretation consistent with other related passages in Scripture?
6. Is my interpretation consistent with the face meaning of the passage?
INHERENT POWER OF THE WORD
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
INTEGRITY AND PURPOSE OF THE WORD
2 Tim. 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, [15] and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; [17] so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
EVERY SCRIPTURE INSPIRED BY GOD
2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, [21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
DURATION OF THE WORD, AND CHARGE TO KEEP IT
Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. [18] "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19] "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
SCRIPTURE ARGUING FROM SCRIPTURE
Present tense vs past tense;
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Importance of a single word;
John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? [35] "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), [36] do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
Significance of the singular noun vs plural;
Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Passive voice rather than active voice of the verb;
Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Implication of one phrase
Hebrews 12:27 This expression, "Yet once more," denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Taking the five passages together, they teach us that to alter or omit a phrase, change the voice or mood or tense of a verb, change a single word or even the number of a noun, is to break with the Scriptures.
JESUS’ RESPONSE WHEN TEMPTED BY SATAN
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.' "
Matthew 4:6-7 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'He will command His angels concerning You'; and
'On their hands they will bear You up,
So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.'
[7] Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.' "
88 times Scriptures record, ‘It is written...’
THE WONDER AND POWER OF THE WORD
Isaiah 55:8-11 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," declares the Lord.
[9] "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
[10] "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
[11] So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WARNINGS ABOUT THE WORD
Deut. 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Rev. 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; [19] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Submission to the Authority of the Word means that when Scripture proclaims a fact about the Christian faith, we believe it. And when Scripture gives a command we apply it in obedience. This is rooted in the core shift of NOT deciding right and wrong for ourselves, and resubmitting to the authority of God to determine good and evil. This obedience is the genuine expression of our faith and love for God. It is the commitment to an obedience that encompasses every aspect of our being.
Romans 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
"That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged."
1. A consistent principle of gender authority through the whole Bible.
2. Unity of principle and practice between the Old and New Testaments.
3. A strong and clear consistency between the instructions in Scripture, and the practice of Scripture, even with the difficult passages.
4. Consistency in gender authority in both the home and the Church.
5. A holding to the traditional interpretation of gender authority, affirming that the Holy Spirit has been faithful to lead us into all truth.
6. An ability to read every key passage from the Bible alone, and walk away with a consistent and reasonably accurate understanding of the teaching and practice of gender authority.
7. While we find a consistent prohibition against women in authority over men, we also find powerful examples of God’s ability to use people outside formal authority.
It is very important to note that the ministry of Jesus shows the incredible power of anointing and calling, apart from positions of authority. During his entire earthly ministry, Christ never stepped into the formal positions of authority he possessed! While he possessed ultimate authority, he served with that power set aside.
I have a challenge for those who still reject what is presented here;
Rewrite these passages in a way that honors the Greek, in a way that makes sense in the context they are found, and yet communicates other than gender authority. Show me a honest translation of all these passages that clearly and consistently communicates equal submission and women in formal positions of authority.
OBEYING WHAT GOD’S WORD SAYS
Oswald Chambers, “We don’t consciously and deliberately disobey God—we simply don’t listen to Him. God has given His commands to us, but we pay no attention to them—not because of willful disobedience, but because we do not truly love and respect Him. “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). We show how little love we have for God by preferring to listen to His servants rather than to Him. We like to listen to personal testimonies, but we don’t want God Himself to speak to us. Why are we so terrified for God to speak to us? It is because we know that when God speaks we must either do what He asks or tell Him we will not obey. But if it is simply one of God’s servants speaking to us, we feel obedience is optional, not imperative. We respond by saying, “Well, that’s only your own idea, even though I don’t deny that what you said is probably God’s truth.”
NOT RE-INTERPRETING WHAT GOD’S WORD SAYS
1 Cor. 4:6 (NIV) ...so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
“No one has the right to adjust the gospel or revise God’s plan for his church. Those precious things are not yours or mine; they are God’s. We need to stop fussing with them. We need to submit to the heavenly design laid down long ago.” Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala
2 Peter 2:1-22 (NIV) But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. [2] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. [3] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; [6] if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [7] and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men [8] (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)-- [9] if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. [10] This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; [11] yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. [12] But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
[13] They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. [14] With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood! [15] They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. [16] But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
[17] These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. [18] For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. [19] They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. [20] If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. [21] It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. [22] Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
APPENDIX 1
INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
I. REVELATION
-God has made Himself known
-divine origin and cause
II. INSPIRATION
-God has made Himself known in words
-God inspired men to write His words
*‘God-breathed’
-All Scripture is inspired
-Because it is divine/inspired, it is inerrant
III. AUTHORITY
-Because God’s word is inspired and inerrant, it alone
has final authority over man
THREE LEVELS OF CRITICISM
1. Lower Criticism; Word translation
2. Higher Criticism; Authorship, Date, Character of Book
3. Highest Criticism; Letter AND spirit of the word...
-Isaiah 66:2 "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
-Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
-1 Cor. 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, [13] which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
GUIDES FOR INTERPRETATION
1. Am I Holy Spirit guided?
2. What principle is being proclaimed?
3. What principle is being practiced?
4. What is the context?
5. Is my interpretation consistent with other related passages in Scripture?
6. Is my interpretation consistent with the face meaning of the passage?
INHERENT POWER OF THE WORD
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
INTEGRITY AND PURPOSE OF THE WORD
2 Tim. 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, [15] and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; [17] so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
EVERY SCRIPTURE INSPIRED BY GOD
2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, [21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
DURATION OF THE WORD, AND CHARGE TO KEEP IT
Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. [18] "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19] "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
SCRIPTURE ARGUING FROM SCRIPTURE
Present tense vs past tense;
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Importance of a single word;
John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? [35] "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), [36] do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
Significance of the singular noun vs plural;
Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
Passive voice rather than active voice of the verb;
Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Implication of one phrase
Hebrews 12:27 This expression, "Yet once more," denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Taking the five passages together, they teach us that to alter or omit a phrase, change the voice or mood or tense of a verb, change a single word or even the number of a noun, is to break with the Scriptures.
JESUS’ RESPONSE WHEN TEMPTED BY SATAN
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.' "
Matthew 4:6-7 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'He will command His angels concerning You'; and
'On their hands they will bear You up,
So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.'
[7] Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.' "
88 times Scriptures record, ‘It is written...’
THE WONDER AND POWER OF THE WORD
Isaiah 55:8-11 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," declares the Lord.
[9] "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
[10] "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
[11] So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WARNINGS ABOUT THE WORD
Deut. 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Rev. 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; [19] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Submission to the Authority of the Word means that when Scripture proclaims a fact about the Christian faith, we believe it. And when Scripture gives a command we apply it in obedience. This is rooted in the core shift of NOT deciding right and wrong for ourselves, and resubmitting to the authority of God to determine good and evil. This obedience is the genuine expression of our faith and love for God. It is the commitment to an obedience that encompasses every aspect of our being.
Romans 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
"That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged."
Sunday, February 7, 2010
DEFENSIVE DRIVING/LIVING
I am a relatively new truck driver. As part of my training (and mistakes), I was required to take a Defensive Driving Course. I found that in defensive driving principles there are several things they teach that have spiritual lessons.
The first thing they teach is to 'get the big picture'. Most people tend to look at the car ahead of them. They teach drivers to look at the vehicles in the distance too. Not just those moving with me, but those coming toward me also. That way, I get earlier warning about what is happening. When vehicles are stopping, dangers ahead or someone swerving out of lane. In life, I also tend to look at just the day in front of me. The people closest to me. The situations of the moment. How many 'scars' might I have avoided in my life if I had learned a lesson by watching someone else learn a lesson driving further down the road of life? The school of hard knocks can be very expensive, and unnecessary! The big picture also encompasses not just the immediate, not even just this life, but most importantly, eternity. How often do we live as if this is the only day that matters? I'm not talking about being anxious for the future, but always being aware there is a future. Jesus often spoke in parables about a master returning unexpectedly. A groom surprising the wedding guests. The Puritans had a saying, 'You are not ready to live until you are ready to die'. That is having 'the big picture'.
The second is making yourself visible. Turn on you lights. Honk your horn. Yell and wave if you have to, but make sure the people who need to see you have every opportunity to do so. Jesus said it this way, 'let your light shine', 'a city set on a hill cannot be hid'. I have been encouraged to be very aware of how those in front and behind me are experiencing my driving performance. Behavior that is not only safe and courteous, but also a reflection of the company I work for. I also have to consider how my drive through life reflects the God I serve. Don't get noticed for rude driving or bad living. Rather, live a life that reflects God, a life of love and holiness. Good works that reflect God's heart to the world He has placed around us.
A third lesson is only back up as much as you need to. You have a huge windshield and good size side windows. All for moving forward. Your side and rear view mirrors are small. Of course you want to have a sense of where you have been. But that is not your main focus. That view is mainly to assist you in moving wisely forward. Yes, there are times you need to look back. Be very cautious when you do. But if all you are looking at is what's behind you, YOU ARE GOING BACKWARDS! Vehicles are made primarily to move forward. So are you and I. Christ died so we could be released from the past and move into the future He is preparing for us. In driving, backing up is a rare, high risk maneuver. In living it is too.
The first thing they teach is to 'get the big picture'. Most people tend to look at the car ahead of them. They teach drivers to look at the vehicles in the distance too. Not just those moving with me, but those coming toward me also. That way, I get earlier warning about what is happening. When vehicles are stopping, dangers ahead or someone swerving out of lane. In life, I also tend to look at just the day in front of me. The people closest to me. The situations of the moment. How many 'scars' might I have avoided in my life if I had learned a lesson by watching someone else learn a lesson driving further down the road of life? The school of hard knocks can be very expensive, and unnecessary! The big picture also encompasses not just the immediate, not even just this life, but most importantly, eternity. How often do we live as if this is the only day that matters? I'm not talking about being anxious for the future, but always being aware there is a future. Jesus often spoke in parables about a master returning unexpectedly. A groom surprising the wedding guests. The Puritans had a saying, 'You are not ready to live until you are ready to die'. That is having 'the big picture'.
The second is making yourself visible. Turn on you lights. Honk your horn. Yell and wave if you have to, but make sure the people who need to see you have every opportunity to do so. Jesus said it this way, 'let your light shine', 'a city set on a hill cannot be hid'. I have been encouraged to be very aware of how those in front and behind me are experiencing my driving performance. Behavior that is not only safe and courteous, but also a reflection of the company I work for. I also have to consider how my drive through life reflects the God I serve. Don't get noticed for rude driving or bad living. Rather, live a life that reflects God, a life of love and holiness. Good works that reflect God's heart to the world He has placed around us.
A third lesson is only back up as much as you need to. You have a huge windshield and good size side windows. All for moving forward. Your side and rear view mirrors are small. Of course you want to have a sense of where you have been. But that is not your main focus. That view is mainly to assist you in moving wisely forward. Yes, there are times you need to look back. Be very cautious when you do. But if all you are looking at is what's behind you, YOU ARE GOING BACKWARDS! Vehicles are made primarily to move forward. So are you and I. Christ died so we could be released from the past and move into the future He is preparing for us. In driving, backing up is a rare, high risk maneuver. In living it is too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)