From beginning to end under every dispensation, the
Bible is clear about the role of woman in relation to men. Hers is a
secondary role of submission to her husband in the family and to men in
the local church (Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:8-15).
Whatever the culture, Lord always dictated His will on such matters on
some other basis than culture. What the Scriptures mandated along this
line was never the reflection of society’s norms (current practice),
though Christians were urged to conform to those norms not in conflict
with God’s will.
Instead of leading, they submit to their husbands or
to elders. God consistently has placed man in the primary position of
leadership. The wife/woman cannot submit to God without submitting
also to her husband or to her elders. In the congregational
relationship and in that of the family, elders and husbands also must
submit to their wives/women in the exercise of their leadership (Eph.
5:21, 28; 1 Pet. 5:2-3). Under the headship of the husband, the
wife also has a charge from God to guide the household (1 Tim. 5:14).
To discharge her task in this guidance, she submits first to her husband
and then to her own family, because she must act in the best interests
of her charges, not of herself alone.
This kind of teaching has become the focus of attack
from those unwilling to accept the teaching of the New Testament. They
have objected to this idea that there are limitations imposed on women
in the Scriptures. A consideration of these objections is the purpose
of this study.
Woman Haters:
The unique role of woman in the home and in the church does not
denigrate her worth, quality, dignity, or significance. Her divine
assignment, in fact, serves to accentuate her supreme worth in the areas
in which God has positioned her to function. Those objecting to
woman’s subjection have historically decried the writers of the Bible as
woman-hating chauvinists, while the opposite is really the truth of the
matter. Many have labeled Paul and others as despisers of women who
were trying to oppress them. It was quite common to hear some
modernist charge Paul with being an old bachelor who neither understood
or cared for women. Such a charge is altogether inconsistent with
their writings. No one can fairly conclude this about Paul after
reading his instructions to the husbands concerning their tender and
gentle treatment of their wives. No more exalted status has ever been
given to women that that they enjoy in the ideals and principles of the
New Testament. Neither Rome, nor Greece, nor traditional Judaism, nor
the current modern “liberation” movement accords them such honor. In
view of the elevating and ennobling influence of the teaching of Christ
on women, there is absolutely no evidence for this charge.
Cultural Bias:
Earlier we have alluded to this allegation. Some have recently
referred to Biblical restrictions on the role of women as merely
cultural, reflecting the biases of the society of that ancient day.
The truth stands out as quite different. Every passage dealing with
such restrictions has within it the reasons for the restrictions, and
they never were cultural. In 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, the
apostle very carefully showed that the reasons behind the limitations
were related to the creation and to divine law. Likewise in 1
Timothy 2, some of the same reasons were given for the restrictions
imposed, with the additional one of woman’s being thoroughly deceived in
Satan’s temptation. Paul’s admission that woman enjoys the first-class
status of a full-fledged member of Christ’s body and his insistence that
Christians live according to God’s will, not the norms and standards of
society, shows the gospel of Christ to be trans-cultural and
counter-cultural (Gal. 3:28; Rom. 12:2), not merely reflective
of current society.
Historic Abuse Demands Liberation: The
claim is that society (including religious leadership) has always
deprived women of their deserved place, and that even husbands have
abused their wives. According to the vocal proponents of such ideas,
women now deserve to have their shackles removed. Let it be understood
that no defense is made here for any society or religious leaders who
promoted female enslavement, either officially or unofficially. No
such abuse or deprivation of God-given rights or dignity ought ever to
exist, though it sometimes has happened and still happens. Such never
resulted from an application of Biblical principles; in fact, the
understanding and application of them would immediately erase all such
abuse and mistreatment. Marriage as established and governed by God
has never resulted in “institutional slavery, as Hillary Clinton once
charged. Divine restrictions must still be respected. Historic
mistreatment of women does not justify anyone’s disregard of what the
Lord has said. Furthermore, the limitations of the Scriptures will not
hinder any woman from performing all of the service that God designs and
desires.
Use Their Gift:
Women who are blessed with a gift from God ought to able to use
that gift, according to even “conservative” religious people. One able
to be a public speaker or lead a church ought to be able to function as
a preacher or a pastor, it is claimed. While this argument might sound
good to some, may we recall that such a line of reasoning (?) has never
been followed in the New Testament as justification for any role or
function. If you can find it, then send the information to this
writer. It is important for all to use whatever abilities they have
from God, but within the framework of God’s will. No talent would ever
allow anyone to go beyond the teaching of Christ or to ignore the
restrictions found there (2 Jn. 9). Women might sometimes
function as teachers/speakers, if they maintain the restrictions.
Equal Position Based on
Equal Nature: While woman has a nature equal to that of
man, she does not have the same position or function that God gave to
man. It might be useful to remember that Jesus on earth had equal
ability with the Father at His disposal, but not equal position. In
His decision to leave heaven for redemption’s work, the Lord voluntarily
gave up His heavenly rank and glory to become a servant (Phil.
2:5-8). He never gave up His divine nature. Position (function)
bears little relation to nature or worth; it relates more to divine
assignment, which is sometimes based on need and qualification. Rank
and position do not reflect value and importance of work in anybody’s
case—Jesus’ or ours.
No Limitations Now:
The contention is often heard that Galatians 3:28 removes all
distinctions based on one’s sex, in that “there is neither male nor
female.” In the context of this verse, however, Paul is not even
hinting that all of these distinctions are removed. If this were his
point, why would he direct a slave to return to his master in the Letter
to Philemon, thus indicating that the master-slave relationship still
obtained? If this were Paul’s point, why did he allow some Jewish
national customs to continue without religious connection (like
circumcision in the case of Timothy)? His point is that these
distinctions do not bar one from full status in the church, enjoying all
blessings in Christ. A Greek woman can be a Christian as readily as a
Jewish man.
This writer has heard nothing from the proponents of
“full rights for the women” that would overturn this teaching. The
problem, as too often is the case, is that many will not allow the
Lord’s teaching to overturn (correct) their notions or ideas. The only
rights that any person—male or female—has are those that the Lord has
given and the Bible recognizes. No one has the right to differ with
God!
Other Articles by Bobby Graham
Iconoclast or Traditionalist:
Which is it?
Why No Instruments of Music?
A Salvation Issue
Me-Centered Religion