Biblical identification of a female pastor and a female apostle.
When it comes to the question of whether or not the Word of God forbids women to pastor a church, we should not overlook the fact that Paul identified a woman who had a church in her home. The New International Version of Colossians 4:15 reads, "Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house." If Nympha had a church in her house, then it stands to reason that she was probably functioning in a pastoral role; afterall, the church was in her house. The early translators realized this as well and was not able to fathom a woman in the position of pastor. They apparently assumed that the scribes must have made some kind of mistake. So instead of leaving the Greek as is, they changed the name of Nympha to Nymphas and had the scripture to read "Nymphas and the church in his house." The King James Version reads, "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house." Most of us know by now that the English translation of the New International Version of the Bible is closer to representing what the Hebrew and Greek actually say as compared to the King James Version and other earlier English translations. There is no doubt that Paul was referring to a woman who had a church in her house. And we can't overlook the fact that during those times church services were held in homes. It is interesting that earlier translators attempted to erase the fact that the passage is referring to a woman and not to a man. What would make the earlier translators change the gender of who Paul was referring to? I think the answer is that they just couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that a woman was over a church. In addition to Nympha, the Elect Lady of 2 John should not be ignored. The entire letter implies the pastoral leadership of a woman.
Finally, not only has a woman (Nympha) been identified in scripture as operating in the function of pastor, but a woman has also been identified as an apostle. The New International Version of Romans 16:7 reads, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." Junia is a female name. Therefore Paul has identified a woman as not only an apostle, but an outstanding one at that.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Friday, March 10, 2006
Does the Word of God forbid women to pastor churches?
I have a friend who recently started a church. Normally that would be considered a good thing. But this friend of mine received many phone calls from Christians who discouraged the venture. The reason…my friend is a woman. Many Christians believe that women should not pastor churches. I’ve looked into this issue considerably and cannot find any concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to become pastors. However, some would vehemently disagree with me.
The main point of debate has to do with how some interpret the passage of scripture found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It reads, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, 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.” (NIV)
The term “overseer” is synonymous with “pastor.” Since the scripture identifies an overseer by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of but one wife, managing the family) many theologians argue that this in itself is enough to prove that the role of pastor is not for women. However, if this is the case, then we should see no place in scripture where a woman has held a position that is identified by roles that apply to men. But on the contrary, we do. Phoebe, a woman, is identified as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, yet the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men. Romans 16:1-2 (NLT) reads, “Our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church in Cenchrea will be coming to see you soon.” It should be noted that the NIV, NASB, and King James versions use the word “servant” instead of “deacon” while the NLT uses the word “deacon” and the Amplified version uses the word “deaconess.” Clearly this is a point of contention among biblical scholars. However, the same Greek word (“diakonos”) that is used for “servant” in Romans 16:1 when identifying Phoebe is the exact same Greek word that is used for the “deacon” in the passage of scripture that defines the role of a deacon, which is found in the following passage of scripture: “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, 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 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.” (1 Timothy 3:8-12 NIV)
There is no doubt that the scripture identifies the office of deacon by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of one wife, manage household well) just as the scripture identifies the office of pastor by roles that apply to men. If then a woman can be a deacon despite the fact that the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men, then it follows that a woman can be a pastor despite the fact that the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men.. Therefore the argument that says a woman cannot be a pastor because the office of pastor is identified by the roles of men is made void since there is a woman (Phoebe) identified in scripture that served in a position in the church that is identified by the roles of men.
To take the point further, if the conservative view says that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men and therefore women cannot hold position in that office, then the conservative view should also say that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to married men then single men cannot hold position in that office. If we are to look at the passage of scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 conservatively then there should be no double standards in interpretation when it comes to gender. The passage says that a pastor should be the husband of but one wife and should be able to manage his family. This therefore defines the office of pastor, not just generally by roles that apply to men, but more specifically by roles that apply to married men. If we apply the same conservative view to men as some do to women when looking at the passage, then we would have to conclude that single men should not pastor. However, even though some in the church might agree with this conclusion, most of us in the church would find this conclusion erroneous and a misinterpretation of scripture, even those who use the same reasoning to forbid women to pastor. This is where the double standard lies.
The unsettling part to all of this is that the church will put up with a man serving in the office of pastor who does not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 before it puts up with a woman serving in the office of pastor, who does. Not only should a pastor have no more than one wife and be able to manage his family but he must be above reproach (not be guilty of disgrace), he must have control of his temper, he must be self-controlled (not prone to fall into temptations of the flesh), he should be respectable, he should be hospitable, he should be able to teach, he should not be a drunkard, he should not be quarrelsome, he should not be violent, he should not be a recent convert, and he should not be a lover of money. It is safe to say that if a pastor fails at meeting even one of these qualifications, he is, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, not qualified to serve in the office of pastor. However, there are many male pastors in the church who do not meet these qualifications and the church merely winks at them.
Those who argue against women serving as pastors also use 1 Timothy 2:11-12, to support their position. It reads, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This was part of Paul’s instructions to Timothy as to how Timothy was to care for the church at Ephesus during the time that Paul would be in Macedonia. Those who argue that women should not pastor emphasize the part in which Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. If a woman is not to have authority over a man, then it follows that she is not to pastor a church, since undoubtedly to do so would put her in a position in which she would have authority over men. However, many theologians see Paul’s instructions to Timothy as specifically applying to how Paul thought it best for the church at Ephesus to function due to the customs of that time and they emphasize the fact that Paul personalized his instructions by using first person. In other words, he was saying to Timothy something like, “this is how I do things in the church at Ephesus and I suggest that you follow my lead on this.” If indeed Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding the church of Ephesus applies to all churches today then not only should women not serve as pastors, but women should not teach Sunday school, women should not teach Bible study, women should not be choir leaders or choir directors, and women should always sit still in Bible study and Sunday school never saying a word or asking a question. But the church today doesn’t exercise such restrictions on women because it realizes that, the way that Paul was instructing Timothy had a direct correlation to the culture of Ephesus at the time.
There are just a couple of other things that must be looked at regarding this issue. The first has to do with the fact that serving as a pastor is listed as a spiritual gift, as attested to in the following passage of scripture: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-13).
The scripture says that Christ has given “some to be pastors.” The word “some” is not gender specific. In other words, “some” applies to human beings as a whole, which of course includes women. There are those who might like to argue that where the scripture says, “and gave gifts to men,” designates gender specification of men only. But when looking at the Greek it is clear that “men” in this context is simply an English translation for “mankind” or “human beings.” Therefore women are not excluded from receiving the gift of pastor. Logically then, if God has given women the gift of pastor then it stands to reason that there are women that he would call to the office of pastor as well. The definition of the word “pastor” is not diminished when it is applied to women.
Finally, there is an example in scripture whereby it appears that a woman actually functioned in the role of a pastor. The entire letter of 2 John is a letter from John the Apostle to whom the New International Version and New Living Translation translates as the “chosen” lady and her children. The King James Version translation reads the “elect” lady. Verses 9-10 (NIV) reads, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” Verse 10 in the New Living Translation reads a little differently. It says, “if someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth…” The operative word here is “meeting.” All would agree that during the times of the early church many church meetings were held in houses. If indeed this chosen lady held a church meeting in her home and was directly instructed not to let anyone into the meeting who taught opposite the teachings of Christ, then it is not a stretch to presume that it is quite possible she was the primary leader of a church assembly, which, in essence is the function of a pastor.
There are opposing interpretations that attempt to nullify any possibility that this chosen lady could have been a pastor. The main opposing interpretation is that this “chosen lady” was not really a woman but was instead a local church and that her children were the members of that local church. In other words the term “chosen lady” was just a figure of speech, a metaphor used to refer to the saints of a local church and its members. The problem with this interpretation is that, nowhere else in scripture is the word “lady” used as a metaphor for the church. Furthermore, John closes his letter by saying to this chosen lady “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (v.12). This is the exact same closing that John used in his letter that he wrote to his male friend, Gaius (third letter of John). John also greets Gaius in the same way that he greets the chosen lady. In verse 4 of John’s third letter, John also refers to children as he did in his letter to the chosen lady. However, theologians do not question that John is talking to an actual man in his letter to Gaius, but there is question as to whether or not John is talking to a woman in his letter to the chosen lady although both the letters are quite similar in style. The point here is that the argument that John was referring to a local church in his second letter instead of to an actual woman is indeed a weak one. After all, he speaks of hoping to visit with her and talk to her “face to face.” It is quite apparent that there was definitely a woman who John referred to as “chosen” and that this woman assembled the saints together in her home, for what could have very possibly been a sacred assembly. Thus, it is evidently conceivable that this lady functioned in the role of pastor. It is also possible that she did not. But the possibility that she could have, should not be denied.
There is simply no concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to pastor. If we say that a woman can be in authority over a man as long as there is man in authority over her, then we must say that a woman can pastor a church as long as there is a man in authority over her (just as Paul was in authority over Timothy). And if we contend that women should not serve as pastors because it puts them in authority over men, then we must take it as far to say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men. Otherwise, we become hypocrites. And if we say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men, then we must sincerely ask ourselves…where would that leave the church? Overall, when it’s all said and done, if a woman believes she is called to pastor a church then she should seek to pastor one. For it is better to obey God rather than man. So to my friend I say, carry on my dear sister in the Lord, no matter how many discouraging phone calls you get, carry on.
I have a friend who recently started a church. Normally that would be considered a good thing. But this friend of mine received many phone calls from Christians who discouraged the venture. The reason…my friend is a woman. Many Christians believe that women should not pastor churches. I’ve looked into this issue considerably and cannot find any concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to become pastors. However, some would vehemently disagree with me.
The main point of debate has to do with how some interpret the passage of scripture found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It reads, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, 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.” (NIV)
The term “overseer” is synonymous with “pastor.” Since the scripture identifies an overseer by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of but one wife, managing the family) many theologians argue that this in itself is enough to prove that the role of pastor is not for women. However, if this is the case, then we should see no place in scripture where a woman has held a position that is identified by roles that apply to men. But on the contrary, we do. Phoebe, a woman, is identified as a deacon in Romans 16:1-2, yet the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men. Romans 16:1-2 (NLT) reads, “Our sister Phoebe, a deacon in the church in Cenchrea will be coming to see you soon.” It should be noted that the NIV, NASB, and King James versions use the word “servant” instead of “deacon” while the NLT uses the word “deacon” and the Amplified version uses the word “deaconess.” Clearly this is a point of contention among biblical scholars. However, the same Greek word (“diakonos”) that is used for “servant” in Romans 16:1 when identifying Phoebe is the exact same Greek word that is used for the “deacon” in the passage of scripture that defines the role of a deacon, which is found in the following passage of scripture: “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, 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 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.” (1 Timothy 3:8-12 NIV)
There is no doubt that the scripture identifies the office of deacon by roles that apply to men (i.e. husband of one wife, manage household well) just as the scripture identifies the office of pastor by roles that apply to men. If then a woman can be a deacon despite the fact that the office of deacon is identified by roles that apply to men, then it follows that a woman can be a pastor despite the fact that the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men.. Therefore the argument that says a woman cannot be a pastor because the office of pastor is identified by the roles of men is made void since there is a woman (Phoebe) identified in scripture that served in a position in the church that is identified by the roles of men.
To take the point further, if the conservative view says that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to men and therefore women cannot hold position in that office, then the conservative view should also say that since the office of pastor is identified by roles that apply to married men then single men cannot hold position in that office. If we are to look at the passage of scripture in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 conservatively then there should be no double standards in interpretation when it comes to gender. The passage says that a pastor should be the husband of but one wife and should be able to manage his family. This therefore defines the office of pastor, not just generally by roles that apply to men, but more specifically by roles that apply to married men. If we apply the same conservative view to men as some do to women when looking at the passage, then we would have to conclude that single men should not pastor. However, even though some in the church might agree with this conclusion, most of us in the church would find this conclusion erroneous and a misinterpretation of scripture, even those who use the same reasoning to forbid women to pastor. This is where the double standard lies.
The unsettling part to all of this is that the church will put up with a man serving in the office of pastor who does not meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 before it puts up with a woman serving in the office of pastor, who does. Not only should a pastor have no more than one wife and be able to manage his family but he must be above reproach (not be guilty of disgrace), he must have control of his temper, he must be self-controlled (not prone to fall into temptations of the flesh), he should be respectable, he should be hospitable, he should be able to teach, he should not be a drunkard, he should not be quarrelsome, he should not be violent, he should not be a recent convert, and he should not be a lover of money. It is safe to say that if a pastor fails at meeting even one of these qualifications, he is, according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7, not qualified to serve in the office of pastor. However, there are many male pastors in the church who do not meet these qualifications and the church merely winks at them.
Those who argue against women serving as pastors also use 1 Timothy 2:11-12, to support their position. It reads, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” This was part of Paul’s instructions to Timothy as to how Timothy was to care for the church at Ephesus during the time that Paul would be in Macedonia. Those who argue that women should not pastor emphasize the part in which Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. If a woman is not to have authority over a man, then it follows that she is not to pastor a church, since undoubtedly to do so would put her in a position in which she would have authority over men. However, many theologians see Paul’s instructions to Timothy as specifically applying to how Paul thought it best for the church at Ephesus to function due to the customs of that time and they emphasize the fact that Paul personalized his instructions by using first person. In other words, he was saying to Timothy something like, “this is how I do things in the church at Ephesus and I suggest that you follow my lead on this.” If indeed Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding the church of Ephesus applies to all churches today then not only should women not serve as pastors, but women should not teach Sunday school, women should not teach Bible study, women should not be choir leaders or choir directors, and women should always sit still in Bible study and Sunday school never saying a word or asking a question. But the church today doesn’t exercise such restrictions on women because it realizes that, the way that Paul was instructing Timothy had a direct correlation to the culture of Ephesus at the time.
There are just a couple of other things that must be looked at regarding this issue. The first has to do with the fact that serving as a pastor is listed as a spiritual gift, as attested to in the following passage of scripture: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:7-13).
The scripture says that Christ has given “some to be pastors.” The word “some” is not gender specific. In other words, “some” applies to human beings as a whole, which of course includes women. There are those who might like to argue that where the scripture says, “and gave gifts to men,” designates gender specification of men only. But when looking at the Greek it is clear that “men” in this context is simply an English translation for “mankind” or “human beings.” Therefore women are not excluded from receiving the gift of pastor. Logically then, if God has given women the gift of pastor then it stands to reason that there are women that he would call to the office of pastor as well. The definition of the word “pastor” is not diminished when it is applied to women.
Finally, there is an example in scripture whereby it appears that a woman actually functioned in the role of a pastor. The entire letter of 2 John is a letter from John the Apostle to whom the New International Version and New Living Translation translates as the “chosen” lady and her children. The King James Version translation reads the “elect” lady. Verses 9-10 (NIV) reads, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” Verse 10 in the New Living Translation reads a little differently. It says, “if someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth…” The operative word here is “meeting.” All would agree that during the times of the early church many church meetings were held in houses. If indeed this chosen lady held a church meeting in her home and was directly instructed not to let anyone into the meeting who taught opposite the teachings of Christ, then it is not a stretch to presume that it is quite possible she was the primary leader of a church assembly, which, in essence is the function of a pastor.
There are opposing interpretations that attempt to nullify any possibility that this chosen lady could have been a pastor. The main opposing interpretation is that this “chosen lady” was not really a woman but was instead a local church and that her children were the members of that local church. In other words the term “chosen lady” was just a figure of speech, a metaphor used to refer to the saints of a local church and its members. The problem with this interpretation is that, nowhere else in scripture is the word “lady” used as a metaphor for the church. Furthermore, John closes his letter by saying to this chosen lady “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (v.12). This is the exact same closing that John used in his letter that he wrote to his male friend, Gaius (third letter of John). John also greets Gaius in the same way that he greets the chosen lady. In verse 4 of John’s third letter, John also refers to children as he did in his letter to the chosen lady. However, theologians do not question that John is talking to an actual man in his letter to Gaius, but there is question as to whether or not John is talking to a woman in his letter to the chosen lady although both the letters are quite similar in style. The point here is that the argument that John was referring to a local church in his second letter instead of to an actual woman is indeed a weak one. After all, he speaks of hoping to visit with her and talk to her “face to face.” It is quite apparent that there was definitely a woman who John referred to as “chosen” and that this woman assembled the saints together in her home, for what could have very possibly been a sacred assembly. Thus, it is evidently conceivable that this lady functioned in the role of pastor. It is also possible that she did not. But the possibility that she could have, should not be denied.
There is simply no concrete scriptural evidence that forbids women to pastor. If we say that a woman can be in authority over a man as long as there is man in authority over her, then we must say that a woman can pastor a church as long as there is a man in authority over her (just as Paul was in authority over Timothy). And if we contend that women should not serve as pastors because it puts them in authority over men, then we must take it as far to say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men. Otherwise, we become hypocrites. And if we say that women should not perform any service at all in the church which puts them in authority over men, then we must sincerely ask ourselves…where would that leave the church? Overall, when it’s all said and done, if a woman believes she is called to pastor a church then she should seek to pastor one. For it is better to obey God rather than man. So to my friend I say, carry on my dear sister in the Lord, no matter how many discouraging phone calls you get, carry on.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Bible teaches that the man is the head of the wife but does this mean that he is her “spiritual” head and the “priest” of the marital home?
There is a teaching that has emerged in the church, which says that a man is not only the authority in the home and the head of his wife, but that he is also the “spiritual” head and “priest” of his marital home. Those who adhere to this teaching use the following scripture to support it: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV).
There is no doubt that husbands have authority over their wives. However, the question becomes: how far does that authority go? Many interpret the above verses of scripture to say that the authority of the husband is not just an earthly one, but a spiritual and priestly authority as well. The thinking is, since the Lord gives us spiritual direction and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, it is now the husband’s job to direct her spiritually. But I contend that this is a misinterpretation. The scripture is simply directing the wife as to how she is to submit. She is to submit to her husband just as willingly as she would submit to the Lord. The scripture is not focusing on the type of headship but instead on the type of submission.
We see something similar when we look at how slaves are to submit to their masters. Ephesians 6:5 teaches the following: “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect, and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The King James Version reads, “as unto Christ.” So, just as a woman is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, a slave is to submit to his master as unto Christ. However, in the case of slave and master, the church doesn’t go so far as to say that the master is the spiritual head and priest of his slave.
One of the main problems we run into when we say that the husband is the spiritual head of his wife is how to apply this type of thinking to a marriage in which a Christian woman is married to an unbeliever. Although the unbelieving husband is still the head of his wife, there is no way that his authority transforms into a spiritual authority…it can’t…he is an unbeliever. This is one of the dangers of this teaching. To say that since a man has an earthly authority over his wife, also means he has a spiritual authority over his wife, automatically 1) places the wife’s spirituality as second to her husband’s 2) implies that when a woman gets married her spiritual connection to God must somehow now come through her husband 3) assumes that the husband is more spiritually mature, and more spiritually in-tune to God, than his wife, 4) puts the wife in a position where her spirituality can always be questioned by her husband 5) assumes that the husband will always hear from God first 6) gives the impression that the wife must always go to her husband regarding spiritual matters 7) puts the wife in a position of second guessing-herself or having to get a confirmation from her husband as to whether or not she has truly heard from the Lord. This is indeed oppressive, and in my opinion, unbiblical. I have not read one scripture that says that the husband is the spiritual head, but only that he is the head. I contend that the spiritual head is Jesus. This is not to say that the husband cannot, at times, lead spiritually, but there is a difference between leading spiritually and declaring oneself to be the spiritual head.
Case in point: This is the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:18-20 (NIV) “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Most of us know the account of how the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary with his Spirit resulting in the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). Before this happened, the angel Gabriel visited Mary to inform her that she would be with child and give birth to the Son of the Most High, Jesus.
There are some significant points to be made here. First, God brought this very important spiritual matter (if not the most important spiritual matter ever) to Mary before bringing it to her husband, Joseph. If Joseph was Mary’s spiritual head, then it would seem that God would have brought this information to Joseph first. Secondly, Mary apparently told Joseph the good news but from looking at the historical account it appears that Joseph didn’t believe her and was going to divorce her because of it. He was going to divorce her privately but he was still going to divorce her. In a sense, it looks as if he questioned Mary’s spirituality in all of this or that he doubted that Mary had ever really had a spiritual visitation from Gabriel. It took God’s intervention to turn Joseph around. I believe that Joseph probably initially felt as many men in the church today would have…that God would not have given such important spiritual information and direction to a man’s wife without first informing her husband. After all…the husband is the spiritual head, right? You see the danger here? Although Joseph was a righteous man, he was righteously wrong in his initial assessment of this very spiritual occurrence.
Another case in point: I knew of a church which supported the teaching that says that a man is the spiritual head of his wife, and therefore turned women away from its church membership whose husbands did not also want to join. At the end of service, an invitation would be made for church membership for those who felt led. During the invitation, there were times when women would come to the altar and by the prompting of the pastor give reason why they wanted to join this particular church. If a woman happened to say that her husband was not going to join, or that her husband belongs to another church, she would be told in front of the entire congregation that she was welcome to visit the church but that she could not become a member without her husband joining too. This ultimately meant that she could not serve in this church.
The problem here is that, in order for these women to have been denied church membership, the following assumptions had to be made: 1) that these women, who claimed that the Lord had led them to this church, must have been mistaken and weren’t spiritually adept enough to know better 2) that the husbands couldn’t have been rebelling against God so these wives must have been rebelling against their husbands 4) that since the husband is the spiritual head of the home, then these husbands knew what was spiritually best for their wives and for their families. Of course there are instances where husbands do know best. But there are also instances where wives know best. There are historical examples of the former and the latter in the Bible and in present times. The dangerous part of this latter scenario is that these women were turned down from a church that they felt God led them to. As a result, they no doubt eventually became members of churches that were spiritually unsatisfying to them or some may have become discouraged and stopped attending church altogether. This is spiritual oppression. A woman’s spiritual wellbeing is more important than a man’s exercise of authority.
Now, one last point: there’s a second half to all of this and that’s the teaching that not only are husbands the spiritual head but they are also the priests of their homes. There is no doubt that the husband’s authority reins supreme in his home, but I believe identifying him as a priest takes things too far. 1 Peter 2:4-6 reads, “As you come to him the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The NIV study Bible Commentary identifies the holy priesthood as the “whole body of believers.” All of us who are saved are priests, in a spiritual sense, who offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus (sacrifices of praise, holy living, etc). Therefore a married Christian woman is a priest just like any other believer. She is to offer up her own spiritual sacrifices just like any other believer. Her husband is no more a priest than she is. She is not dependent upon her husband to offer up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord on her behalf. She can do this on her own, for herself, as she should. Of course, her husband can intercede in prayer for her just as she can for him, but there are important distinctions between intercessory prayer and the holy priesthood. And I believe that the church might be inappropriately infusing the two.
Hebrews 7:22-27 reads, “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself.” Jesus is our High Priest. Hebrews 8 defines Jesus as the mediator between us and God. Therefore it is not the husband that is the priestly mediator between his wife and God, but instead, Jesus. The wife has the ability and opportunity to offer spiritual sacrifices to Jesus who in turn intercedes and mediates between her and the Father on her behalf. To teach that a woman’s husband is her priest instead of teaching that Jesus is her priest is unbiblical and minimizes her privilege to approach the throne of grace for herself. It also implies that somehow her husband can help to exonerate her of her sins, which, of course he cannot. The term “priest” should not be used too freely. It has too much biblical meaning.
Both the husband and the wife are spiritual priests and are subject to the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore, both can approach the High priest on an equal basis at any time without sanction or permission from the other. With all this said, it is simply best and spiritually safer to identify the man’s role as no more than what it is…he is the head of his wife and the head of his house. He is the earthy head of his wife, but he is not identified in the Bible as his wife’s spiritual head, and he is not identified as his wife’s priest. Therefore, I think it would be best if we were not to identify him in that way either because to do so can easily lead to the spiritual oppression of women.
There is a teaching that has emerged in the church, which says that a man is not only the authority in the home and the head of his wife, but that he is also the “spiritual” head and “priest” of his marital home. Those who adhere to this teaching use the following scripture to support it: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV).
There is no doubt that husbands have authority over their wives. However, the question becomes: how far does that authority go? Many interpret the above verses of scripture to say that the authority of the husband is not just an earthly one, but a spiritual and priestly authority as well. The thinking is, since the Lord gives us spiritual direction and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, it is now the husband’s job to direct her spiritually. But I contend that this is a misinterpretation. The scripture is simply directing the wife as to how she is to submit. She is to submit to her husband just as willingly as she would submit to the Lord. The scripture is not focusing on the type of headship but instead on the type of submission.
We see something similar when we look at how slaves are to submit to their masters. Ephesians 6:5 teaches the following: “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect, and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The King James Version reads, “as unto Christ.” So, just as a woman is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, a slave is to submit to his master as unto Christ. However, in the case of slave and master, the church doesn’t go so far as to say that the master is the spiritual head and priest of his slave.
One of the main problems we run into when we say that the husband is the spiritual head of his wife is how to apply this type of thinking to a marriage in which a Christian woman is married to an unbeliever. Although the unbelieving husband is still the head of his wife, there is no way that his authority transforms into a spiritual authority…it can’t…he is an unbeliever. This is one of the dangers of this teaching. To say that since a man has an earthly authority over his wife, also means he has a spiritual authority over his wife, automatically 1) places the wife’s spirituality as second to her husband’s 2) implies that when a woman gets married her spiritual connection to God must somehow now come through her husband 3) assumes that the husband is more spiritually mature, and more spiritually in-tune to God, than his wife, 4) puts the wife in a position where her spirituality can always be questioned by her husband 5) assumes that the husband will always hear from God first 6) gives the impression that the wife must always go to her husband regarding spiritual matters 7) puts the wife in a position of second guessing-herself or having to get a confirmation from her husband as to whether or not she has truly heard from the Lord. This is indeed oppressive, and in my opinion, unbiblical. I have not read one scripture that says that the husband is the spiritual head, but only that he is the head. I contend that the spiritual head is Jesus. This is not to say that the husband cannot, at times, lead spiritually, but there is a difference between leading spiritually and declaring oneself to be the spiritual head.
Case in point: This is the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:18-20 (NIV) “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Most of us know the account of how the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary with his Spirit resulting in the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). Before this happened, the angel Gabriel visited Mary to inform her that she would be with child and give birth to the Son of the Most High, Jesus.
There are some significant points to be made here. First, God brought this very important spiritual matter (if not the most important spiritual matter ever) to Mary before bringing it to her husband, Joseph. If Joseph was Mary’s spiritual head, then it would seem that God would have brought this information to Joseph first. Secondly, Mary apparently told Joseph the good news but from looking at the historical account it appears that Joseph didn’t believe her and was going to divorce her because of it. He was going to divorce her privately but he was still going to divorce her. In a sense, it looks as if he questioned Mary’s spirituality in all of this or that he doubted that Mary had ever really had a spiritual visitation from Gabriel. It took God’s intervention to turn Joseph around. I believe that Joseph probably initially felt as many men in the church today would have…that God would not have given such important spiritual information and direction to a man’s wife without first informing her husband. After all…the husband is the spiritual head, right? You see the danger here? Although Joseph was a righteous man, he was righteously wrong in his initial assessment of this very spiritual occurrence.
Another case in point: I knew of a church which supported the teaching that says that a man is the spiritual head of his wife, and therefore turned women away from its church membership whose husbands did not also want to join. At the end of service, an invitation would be made for church membership for those who felt led. During the invitation, there were times when women would come to the altar and by the prompting of the pastor give reason why they wanted to join this particular church. If a woman happened to say that her husband was not going to join, or that her husband belongs to another church, she would be told in front of the entire congregation that she was welcome to visit the church but that she could not become a member without her husband joining too. This ultimately meant that she could not serve in this church.
The problem here is that, in order for these women to have been denied church membership, the following assumptions had to be made: 1) that these women, who claimed that the Lord had led them to this church, must have been mistaken and weren’t spiritually adept enough to know better 2) that the husbands couldn’t have been rebelling against God so these wives must have been rebelling against their husbands 4) that since the husband is the spiritual head of the home, then these husbands knew what was spiritually best for their wives and for their families. Of course there are instances where husbands do know best. But there are also instances where wives know best. There are historical examples of the former and the latter in the Bible and in present times. The dangerous part of this latter scenario is that these women were turned down from a church that they felt God led them to. As a result, they no doubt eventually became members of churches that were spiritually unsatisfying to them or some may have become discouraged and stopped attending church altogether. This is spiritual oppression. A woman’s spiritual wellbeing is more important than a man’s exercise of authority.
Now, one last point: there’s a second half to all of this and that’s the teaching that not only are husbands the spiritual head but they are also the priests of their homes. There is no doubt that the husband’s authority reins supreme in his home, but I believe identifying him as a priest takes things too far. 1 Peter 2:4-6 reads, “As you come to him the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The NIV study Bible Commentary identifies the holy priesthood as the “whole body of believers.” All of us who are saved are priests, in a spiritual sense, who offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus (sacrifices of praise, holy living, etc). Therefore a married Christian woman is a priest just like any other believer. She is to offer up her own spiritual sacrifices just like any other believer. Her husband is no more a priest than she is. She is not dependent upon her husband to offer up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord on her behalf. She can do this on her own, for herself, as she should. Of course, her husband can intercede in prayer for her just as she can for him, but there are important distinctions between intercessory prayer and the holy priesthood. And I believe that the church might be inappropriately infusing the two.
Hebrews 7:22-27 reads, “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself.” Jesus is our High Priest. Hebrews 8 defines Jesus as the mediator between us and God. Therefore it is not the husband that is the priestly mediator between his wife and God, but instead, Jesus. The wife has the ability and opportunity to offer spiritual sacrifices to Jesus who in turn intercedes and mediates between her and the Father on her behalf. To teach that a woman’s husband is her priest instead of teaching that Jesus is her priest is unbiblical and minimizes her privilege to approach the throne of grace for herself. It also implies that somehow her husband can help to exonerate her of her sins, which, of course he cannot. The term “priest” should not be used too freely. It has too much biblical meaning.
Both the husband and the wife are spiritual priests and are subject to the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore, both can approach the High priest on an equal basis at any time without sanction or permission from the other. With all this said, it is simply best and spiritually safer to identify the man’s role as no more than what it is…he is the head of his wife and the head of his house. He is the earthy head of his wife, but he is not identified in the Bible as his wife’s spiritual head, and he is not identified as his wife’s priest. Therefore, I think it would be best if we were not to identify him in that way either because to do so can easily lead to the spiritual oppression of women.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
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
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
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)