The Bible says that wives must submit to their husbands in everything...does this really mean everything?
No, this does not literally mean everything, because if it did, then the Bible would be contradicting itself and the word of God doesn’t do that. To begin with, this teaching comes from Ephesians 5:24 and reads (NLT) “As the church submits to Christ so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.” This scripture brings two concerns to the forefront that must be addressed. The first has to do with the question of whether or not everything really means everything. The second has to do with the directive for wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. A very popular teaching has emerged in the church that interprets this type of submission to mean that the husband is the “spiritual” head of his wife and the “priest” of his home. I’ll give you my views on the second concern in the next issue of the magazine.
There are three instances in which a woman is under no obligation to submit to her husband. One of those instances is when a man asks his wife to do something that she knows is a sin. Acts 5:29 teaches us that “we must obey God rather than man” (NASB). The NLT puts it this way, “we must obey God rather than human authority.” So, if a husband’s demands violate God’s commands then the wife of that husband is not obligated to submit to those demands. She must instead, choose to obey God.
To cite a couple of examples, say for instance a man insists that he and his wife cheat on their income tax return. If he wants to cheat and they’re filing jointly, he can’t cheat without her cheating too. But God has commanded us to pay the government what we owe the government. We see this in the book of Matthew when looking at the account in which the Pharisees asked Jesus about paying taxes. The account is as follows: “Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?” But Jesus knew their evil motives. “You hypocrites!” he said. “Whom are you trying to fool with your trick questions? Here, show me the Roman coin used for the tax.” When they handed him the coin, he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Well, then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to him. But everything that belongs to God must be given to God.”
There’s no question from reading this account that cheating the federal government is a sin. So a wife would not be obligated to submit to her husband’s demand to cheat. We should also be reminded of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego whose accounts are found in the 3rd chapter of Daniel. All three of them refused to submit to the decree to bow down and worship a gold Statue. They were willing to lose their lives instead of submitting to an immoral directive. And after all was said and done, they were rewarded by God for doing what was right.
Another instance in which a woman is under no obligation to submit to her husband is when a man asks his wife to do something that she thinks is a sin. This is backed up by what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 8:12 (NLT) which reads, “And you are sinning against Christ when you sin against other Christians by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong.” In the 14th chapter of Romans, Paul further emphasizes his point with his discussion about Christians who believe it is a sin to eat certain foods. Verses 14 and 22-23 bring the point home: “I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong.” “You may have the faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is right. But if people have doubts about whether they should eat something, they shouldn’t eat it. They would be condemned for not acting in faith before God. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.” The scriptures speak for themselves here. If a man asks his wife to do something that she thinks is a sin, even though it might not really be a sin, then she is under no obligation to submit to her husband in this case, because for her…it is a sin.
One final instance in which a woman is under no obligation to submit to her husband is when a man asks his wife to do something that impedes her from going forth in the ministry that God has called her to. As Christians, all of us have at least one spiritual gift that we should be using to further the Kingdom of God. This is pointed out in Romans 12:4-8 which says, “Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ’s body. We are all parts of his one body, and each of us has different work to do. And since we are all one body in Christ, we belong to each other, and each of us needs all the others. God has given each of us the ability to do certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy, speak out when you have faith that God is speaking through you. If your gift is that of serving others, serve them well. If you are a teacher, do a good job of teaching. If your gift is to encourage others, do it! If you have money, share it generously. If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously. And if you have a gift for showing kindness to others, do it gladly” (NLT). Married Christian women are just as obligated to abide by what Paul was teaching here as any other Christian.
There’s no doubt about it, we have all been commanded by God to use the gifts he has given us and to go forth in the ministry that God has assigned us to. Therefore, if a woman finds herself in a situation where her husband, is in some way, trying control, limit, or discourage her, in the ministry that the Lord has given her, then she must still go forth in her ministry, despite her husband’s objections. Again, it is better to obey God rather than man. Husbands are not exempt from being part of the definition of “man.” We must remember that when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he initially didn’t support her in the assignment that God had given her. He instead was going to divorce her. God had assigned Mary to be the one who would give birth to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Apparently Joseph initially didn’t believe what was happening and it took an intervention from God to change Joseph around. But even if God had not intervened, Mary was still obligated to God to complete her assignment, with or without Joseph.
I remember sitting in church one day several years back, and the assistant pastor gave mention to the fact that the senior pastor’s wife was called to preach but that she did not preach because she did not want to compete with her husband. The assistant pastor complimented and applauded her for this and encouraged the congregation to applaud her as well. So the entire congregation applauded. I applauded too but after I returned home from service that day, I thought about it and it has stayed with me even until now. The pastor’s wife was praised for not going forth in a ministry (because of her husband’s insecurities) that the Lord had given her. However, if she had insisted on preaching, although she might have been condemned in this particular church for doing so, she would not have been spiritually or morally wrong to use her gift despite her husband’s objections. She should have obeyed God rather than her husband and gone forth with her ministry, even if it might have meant loosing her husband. But she was brainwashed by this particular spiritually oppressive teaching in the church as were all the women who were there at the time, including me.
Well, there you have it…three instances in which a woman is not obligated to submit to her husband. It would be good for preachers and teachers to talk about these three instances when they broach the subject of submission. Sermons and lessons on submission in the church are often times delivered one-sidedly and many of the scriptures that address submission are often exploited. These three exceptions to a wife submitting to her husband are rarely explored, which is why I have taken the liberty to explore them with you.
I would like to know what you think. Please feel free to post your thoughts on this subject. Just click the comment button and it'll take you to where you need to be. Also, if you’d like to learn more about me and the books that I have written, please feel to visit my website at www.elretadodds.com.
Copyright Elreta Dodds 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Does the Bible prohibit women from being deacons?
No, the Bible does not prohibit women from being deacons in the church. However, many church pastors and leaders prohibit women from serving as deacons and there are a couple of arguments that they use in order to try to justify their position of prohibition in this area.
Number one: they will quote 1st Timothy 3:1-13 which says (NIV), "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [pastor of a church congregation] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect [the New Living translation translates this as...'in the same way deacons must be people who are respected and have integrity'], sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives [the NIV study Bible footnotes indicate that 'the Greek for this phrase simply means '"the women'" and therefore could reafer to (1) deacons' wives or (2) deaconesses'] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
The argument that the prohibitionists give here in favor of their position, is that the scriptural text is written in the male gender and refers to a male role model and therefore is in no way referring to women. Then they conclude that since the scripture text does not refer to women that it is automatically prohibiting women from the office of deacon. The problem with this argument is that Paul, the apostle identified a woman named Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Romans 16:1-2 reads (NIV), "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea [other translations, including the New Living Translation, translates the word 'servant' as 'deacon']. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."
Yes, there's a pink elephant in the room...and her name is Phoebe. If it were against God's word or spiritually unseemly for a woman to be a deacon then it seems as if Paul would have rebuked Phoebe instead of uplifting her in her position as deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Mostly all theologians admit the there is no question that the text is saying that Phoebe was a deacon. You would think that that would be the end of the argument and the fact that Phoebe was a deacon supported in her position by a man who wrote two thirds of the New Testament would put to rest any erroneous belief that the Bible teaches that women cannot be deacons. But, unfortunately this is not the case. When presented with the rebuttal that Phoebe was a deacon and that Paul recognized her as such, many of the prohibitionists will quote the following scriptural text in an effort to justify their position (which is the number 2 argument):
"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. 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. 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 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word. This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism." (Acts 6:1-6 NIV)
Those opposed to women being assigned to the office of deacon in the church will use the above scriptural text to try to minimize the office of deacon that Phoebe was appointed to. They will say that the seven men spoken of in Acts 6:1-6 were ordained as deacons whereas Phoebe was not. First of all, the text in Acts never identified these seven men as deacons, only as those in charge of the distribution of food. Secondly, the text alludes to the task of food distribution being somewhat of a mundane task, but the text that we read in Timothy describing the office of a deacon didn't seem mundane at all, which furthers the point that these seven men were not identified as deacons because there is a probability that they may not have been deacons, but food distributors, just as the text says.
Thirdly, to be ordained in an office of the church simply means to be established in that office by an overseer of the church. How can we say that Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon when Paul, the apostle, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, specifically pointed her out, established her in the church of Cenchrea as a deacon, and essentially told everyone to respect and honor her as such? How much more ordained can she get? Phoebe was no less ordained to carry out the office of deacon than those seven men were ordained to carry out the duty of food distribution (it is still questionable whether or not they were established as deacons, because the text doesn't say that they were). Fifthly, I believe that if seven women had been chosen to distribute the food instead of seven men, then the text would be taken for no more than what it is...seven people chosen to distribute food and nothing more.
Finally, making the argument that since only men were chosen for the task of the food distribution [which many would then therefore argue that these men were consequently serving as deacons], that this automatically prohibits women from serving as deacons [since there were no women who were chosen to distribute the food] would be like arguing that since all of the men chosen as food distributors ["deacons"] were Jews, then only Jews can serve as deacons. I think most of us would view that type of thinking as preposterous. Yet, when it comes to thinking this way about men...that only they can serve as deacons [since they were selected for food distribution]... well, many don't see this type of thinking as preposterous. Come to think of it...I wonder how many deacons in the church today distribute food as part of their service of being a deacon. Seems like if this particular text in Acts is going to be used to identify men as being the only ones qualified to serve as deacons then it would follow that the service described in the text should automatically be part of the duty of that office. Hmmm.......
I'd like to know what you think. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
No, the Bible does not prohibit women from being deacons in the church. However, many church pastors and leaders prohibit women from serving as deacons and there are a couple of arguments that they use in order to try to justify their position of prohibition in this area.
Number one: they will quote 1st Timothy 3:1-13 which says (NIV), "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [pastor of a church congregation] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to mange his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect [the New Living translation translates this as...'in the same way deacons must be people who are respected and have integrity'], sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives [the NIV study Bible footnotes indicate that 'the Greek for this phrase simply means '"the women'" and therefore could reafer to (1) deacons' wives or (2) deaconesses'] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
The argument that the prohibitionists give here in favor of their position, is that the scriptural text is written in the male gender and refers to a male role model and therefore is in no way referring to women. Then they conclude that since the scripture text does not refer to women that it is automatically prohibiting women from the office of deacon. The problem with this argument is that Paul, the apostle identified a woman named Phoebe as a deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Romans 16:1-2 reads (NIV), "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea [other translations, including the New Living Translation, translates the word 'servant' as 'deacon']. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."
Yes, there's a pink elephant in the room...and her name is Phoebe. If it were against God's word or spiritually unseemly for a woman to be a deacon then it seems as if Paul would have rebuked Phoebe instead of uplifting her in her position as deacon of the church of Cenchrea. Mostly all theologians admit the there is no question that the text is saying that Phoebe was a deacon. You would think that that would be the end of the argument and the fact that Phoebe was a deacon supported in her position by a man who wrote two thirds of the New Testament would put to rest any erroneous belief that the Bible teaches that women cannot be deacons. But, unfortunately this is not the case. When presented with the rebuttal that Phoebe was a deacon and that Paul recognized her as such, many of the prohibitionists will quote the following scriptural text in an effort to justify their position (which is the number 2 argument):
"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. 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. 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 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word. This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism." (Acts 6:1-6 NIV)
Those opposed to women being assigned to the office of deacon in the church will use the above scriptural text to try to minimize the office of deacon that Phoebe was appointed to. They will say that the seven men spoken of in Acts 6:1-6 were ordained as deacons whereas Phoebe was not. First of all, the text in Acts never identified these seven men as deacons, only as those in charge of the distribution of food. Secondly, the text alludes to the task of food distribution being somewhat of a mundane task, but the text that we read in Timothy describing the office of a deacon didn't seem mundane at all, which furthers the point that these seven men were not identified as deacons because there is a probability that they may not have been deacons, but food distributors, just as the text says.
Thirdly, to be ordained in an office of the church simply means to be established in that office by an overseer of the church. How can we say that Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon when Paul, the apostle, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, specifically pointed her out, established her in the church of Cenchrea as a deacon, and essentially told everyone to respect and honor her as such? How much more ordained can she get? Phoebe was no less ordained to carry out the office of deacon than those seven men were ordained to carry out the duty of food distribution (it is still questionable whether or not they were established as deacons, because the text doesn't say that they were). Fifthly, I believe that if seven women had been chosen to distribute the food instead of seven men, then the text would be taken for no more than what it is...seven people chosen to distribute food and nothing more.
Finally, making the argument that since only men were chosen for the task of the food distribution [which many would then therefore argue that these men were consequently serving as deacons], that this automatically prohibits women from serving as deacons [since there were no women who were chosen to distribute the food] would be like arguing that since all of the men chosen as food distributors ["deacons"] were Jews, then only Jews can serve as deacons. I think most of us would view that type of thinking as preposterous. Yet, when it comes to thinking this way about men...that only they can serve as deacons [since they were selected for food distribution]... well, many don't see this type of thinking as preposterous. Come to think of it...I wonder how many deacons in the church today distribute food as part of their service of being a deacon. Seems like if this particular text in Acts is going to be used to identify men as being the only ones qualified to serve as deacons then it would follow that the service described in the text should automatically be part of the duty of that office. Hmmm.......
I'd like to know what you think. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)