Male Leadership in the Bible is God’s Pattern Even with Deborah (1 Timothy 2:12 and Judges 4)

159 Responses

1. Can you name me one office of the church that men are capable of performing, but are forbidden to perform because, and only because, they are men and are not women?
   If God forbids women from being in charge of men, and God never forbids men from some equally important role in favor or women, then women are not only disqualified from any means of protecting themselves from the loving fists of men, but are actually completely unnecessary to run a church congregation.
   Forbidding women from leadership over men devalues all of the facilities a woman has that can go into leadership over men as a mistake in their design. If women were truly incapable of leading, there would be no need to forbid it, because they’d never manage to try.
   ‘Separate but equal’ is not equal, especially if there actually is no ‘equal.’ Pulling out random examples of people in the Bible being mentioned for being important does not change the blanket prohibition against women having any say (which is what authority boiled down to) in what the church does to them. Pulling out how much worse things were before for women only tells us that Christianity is obsolete. Its former status as a champion of human rights is for historians, not apologists who are using Christianity against women.
   Bragging about how many bricks you put into the arch of woman’s dignity as humans does nothing when you are doing it to justify keeping the keystones in your pocket. Your denial will not prevent the arch from falling.

   Reply

   1. Hello Gordon,
      No, I cannot name an office in the church that men are capable of performing, but forbidden from performing because they are men.

      Just because men are given authority it does not mean they can abuse women. That is an absurd argument.

      I disagree with you that having different roles and responsibilities means women are devalued. I do not think men are devalued just because they are not given the same responsibilities women are given in Titus 2.

      I didn’t see any scripture in your argument and I did not see you disagree with any of my uses of Scripture. The question is not what we think or what makes the most sense to us. The question is what does the Bible say? I do not think your argument is remotely rooted in the Bible.

      Reply

2. Isaiah 3 isn’t referring to actual women, but in the original LXX or Greek Septuagint, you actually see it referring to creditors, not women.

   The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, the word can also be read as noshim (נשים), which means “creditors.” The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Translation (NET) translates the pertinent phrase as “creditors rule over them”.

   The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. (It is these later vowel points that distinguish nashim from noshim.) The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a (translated into English) reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.”

   Extortion is alluded to in the verses directly following verse 12 where God condemns those who have plundered and oppressed the poor.

   “The Lord brings this charge
   against the elders and leaders of his people:
   “You have devastated the vineyard.
   The plunder from the poor is in your houses.
   Why do you crush my people
   and grind the faces of the poor?”
   This is the declaration of the Lord God of Armies.”

   – (Isaiah 3:13-15; cf. 3:5)

   Adam Clarke also supports this as well: “This verse might be read, ‘The collectors of grapes shall be their oppressors; and usurers (noshim, instead of nashim, women) shall rule over them.’” – Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible

   The idea of being extorted by creditors fits with the overall context of Isaiah chapter 3, but so does the idea of inept, ineffectual people as leaders. Whatever the original word may have been, nashim or noshim, God was saying Judah was being misled by incompetent and unscrupulous people

   Here are the queens and female rulers mentioned in the Bible.

   ~ The Queen of Sheba, known for visiting Solomon to learn from his wisdom, is mentioned positively by Jesus in the Gospels (1 Kings 10:1ff; 1 Chronicles 9:1ff; Luke 11:31).

   ~ Tahpenes, a queen of Egypt (1 Kings 11:19–20).

   ~ Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, king of Israel, and daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians (1 Kings 16:31). Jezebel was a wicked queen with clout and is mentioned several times in 1 Kings chapters 18–21 and 2 Kings chapter 9. (Dr Claude Mariottini has written about Queen Jezebel here.)

   ~ Athaliah, the murderous daughter of either Omri, king of Israel (2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chron. 22:2), or of his son Ahab (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chron. 21:6). She married Jehoram, the king of Judah. After his death and then the death of their son King Ahaziah one year later, Athaliah became the sole ruler of Judah for six years in around 841–835 BC (2 Kings 11:1-20).

   ~ An unnamed queen of Chaldea who gave her husband Belshazzar good advice (Daniel 5:10–12).

   ~ Vashti, the wife of Xerxes (before Esther) who was exiled because she would not submit to her husband’s undignified request (Esther 1:10–2:4).

   ~ Esther, the Jewish wife of Xerxes. Queen Esther was instrumental in rescuing the Jews. She was not a ruler like her husband but, as queen, her instructions were carried out by men and women (Esther 4:15–17).

   ~ An unnamed queen of Persia, the wife of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:6).

   ~ Kandake (or Candace), queen of Ethiopia or Kush (Acts 8:27).

   ~ Berenice (or Bernice), queen of Chalcis, and sister and “consort” of Agrippa II (Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30).
   Sheerah could be added to this list. She was clearly an influential woman and probably a leader of the towns she established. One of the towns even bears her name: Uzzen Sheerah (1 Chronicles 7:24). Miriam could also be added to this list, considering that she was a leader along with her brothers (Micah 6:4).
   Some women were leaders of towns, civil leaders such as the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah. And some women were prophets, religious leaders such as Miriam, Huldah, and Noadiah). Deborah was a judge and a prophet, two of the roles listed in Isaiah 3:1-2, and God blessed Israel through her leadership. Salome Alexandra was a pious woman who brought peace and prosperity when she reigned Judah as sole monarch from 75 BC until her death in 67 BC.

   “Scripture offers no evidence that the Israelites ever rejected a woman’s civil leadership simply on the basis of gender. On the contrary, we get the impression that Israel acknowledged the authority of God-ordained women leaders to the same extent as their male counterparts”
   – Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 67.

   Also, being a “keeper at home” doesn’t mean what you think it is. There were plenty of women who were married and still had work/career outside of their home:

   The women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting were not keepers at home.

   ~ Rahab wasn’t just a housekeeper, she was an innkeeper, and God chose her to have faith, risk her life, and to help the Israelites.

   ~ Ruth wasn’t a keeper at home She worked hard gleaning in the barley fields. Many ancient women, including godly women, worked hard for their livelihood.

   ~ Deborah, a prophetess and judge of Israel, didn’t keep at home but judged under the Palm of Deborah, a landmark at crossroads in the centre of Israel. And she went with Barak to battle against their enemy.

   ~ The Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah didn’t keep at home when she spoke with Joab (the commander of David’s army) on behalf of her city and negotiated for its safety.

   ~ Huldah, on the other hand, seems to have been at home when she received a delegation sent from King Josiah seeking her advice. This delegation included the High Priest (Hilkiah), the father of the future governor (Ahikam), the son of a prophet (Achbor), the secretary of state (Shaphan), and the king’s officer (Asaiah). Huldah speaks to these men on behalf of God. .

   ~ The Queen of Sheba didn’t keep at home and she was commended by both Solomon and Jesus for coming “from the ends of the earth to hear Solomon’s wisdom” (1 Kings 10:1-29; Matt. 12:42, Luke 11:31).

   ~ Sheerah could not have built towns if her main role was housekeeping (1 Chron. 7:24). More on her here. And the daughters of Shallum could not have helped rebuild the walls of Jerusalem if their main role was housekeeping (Neh. 3:12).

   ~ Anna spent little time at home. She spent her days and nights fasting and praying in the temple in Jerusalem. She was there when Mary and Joseph brought the baby Jesus to the temple, and from that time she began telling everyone who was waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem about Jesus (Luke 2:37-38).

   ~ Many Galilean women didn’t keep at home but followed Jesus as he ministered in Galilee. They even followed him to Jerusalem where they watched him be crucified. And Mary Magdalene wasn’t at home on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection. I’m glad she didn’t miss out on being the first to see the risen Lord by keeping at home.

   ~ When Paul first met Lydia she wasn’t at home but she later used her home as a base for the new church at Philippi. She also ran a business dealing with luxury textiles. Lydia, and many other first-century women like her, had servants and slaves to do the housework. Paul wasn’t talking about scrubbing floors or doing the laundry in Titus 2:4-5.

   ~ Phoebe didn’t stay home or do laundry. She travelled from Cenchrea (a port city of Corinth) carrying Paul’s precious letter to the church at Rome. Paul speaks about her warmly and tells the Romans she is a diakonos (minister or deacon) of the church at Cenchrea and a patron of many.

   ~ Junia didn’t keep at home. She was a missionary and, at one point at least, was imprisoned with Paul.

   ~ Priscilla travelled with her husband Aquila and the apostle Paul. Paul mentions that she and her husband risked their lives for him. However, the couple did use their home as a base for the church at Ephesus and later at Rome. When Paul greets 28 Christians at Rome, he greets Priscilla first. First!

   Reply

   1. Hello Kyle,
      Or perhaps your name is Margaret? I could tell from your comment that you probably didn’t read my post thoroughly. After searching for your comment on the Internet to see if you leave it on other posts it always took me back to the same website. The comment is word for word from posts on the site I found. I started responding to your comment and will leave what I wrote, but considering that it seems like you didn’t thoroughly read my post, but simply copied parts of posts from Margaret’s site (or your own site if you are Margaret using a different name), I don’t want to put further time into responding.

      The Hebrew word for woman is iššâ. It means woman, wife, female, which is how it’s translated in every Bible. I couldn’t find one translation that said creditor. Click the link to look at the Hebrew word for yourself. It is not the word you referenced. It is unfortunate the you have been putting this comment all over the Internet misleading people. If other people don’t take the time to look up what you wrote, then they might embrace your false teaching. God holds us accountable for false teaching. Are you going to go back and try to find all of the comments you made and fix them?

      I’m not sure why you mentioned all those queens? I know there are queens in the Bible and they can be godly, such as Esther.

      You quoted an egalitarian book that supports female leadership. We can find material to support any view. I have seen people do this to defend homosexuality and the other day I even saw someone do it to defend abortion. The issue is not whether we can find teaching the supports our view. The question is what does God’s Word say. I feel like I would be repeating this post to further explain what God’s Word teaches. I don’t think any honest reading of the text can defend female leadership in the home or the church.

      Regarding keepers of the home, several verses in Scripture encourage married women to focus on the care of their homes:
      —“The wise woman builds her house” (Proverbs 14:1).
      —“I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house” (1 Timothy 5:14).
      —“Older women…admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers” (Titus 2:3-5).

      You chose a harlot, Rahab, to defend woman not caring for their homes. We don’t have much record of her life after her conversion but I suspect her profession changed.

      You mentioned Ruth, who also wasn’t a keeper at home, but that’s because she didn’t have a home. The men in her life died. She found herself in a difficult and unique situation that is not prescriptive.

      You mentioned Deborah who I thoroughly discussed in the post and how she actually argues for male leadership. It was after responding to your comment about Deborah that I began to suspect that you didn’t read my post, but simply copied material. If you want to respond to my post after reading it, I would be happy to continue the conversation with you.

      Reply

      1. Hello, Scott. Yes, I did borrow certain parts of my comment from Margaret Mowzcko. However, that was only a small part of my comment. I had my own thoughts and some copying of her material along with a few others.

         Yes, there are translations that use the word “creditor” instead of “woman” in Isaiah 3. Again, I suggest you look back at my argument about the Vowel points and how with the new addition of the Masoretic text, they were added in there. “Noshim” instead of “Nashim” without the addition of the vowel points translates to “creditors” instead of “women.” The Greek LXX which predates the current Masoretic which virtually underlies the text of the Old Testament in all modern translations translates it as “creditors.” And there are *SOME* modern English translations like the NET or New English Translation which also uses the same word as well. Regardless, even if one chooses to use “women,” which I don’t believe is accurate based upon my original understanding, there’s good reason to suspect that it isn’t referring to all women and is more than less used as a metaphor for weak people, not people of the female sex.

         The book that I quoted is indeed an Egalitarian book, but to dismissively shrug it off because of that, I find is a question begging fallacy. When points of discussion are brought up in an argument, I think it’s imperative to actually address the things at hand rather than to just merely dismiss it. It’s not like they are just merely adding their opinion to it, they believe (regardless if you think they are mislead or not, convinced that’s what the Bible teaches and appeals to it). In the case of abortion and homosexuality, if someone thought that’s what the Bible taught and tried to appeal to it, then I would argue they are wrong and show them that their attempts is wrong rather than merely dismissing it as such. Also, the examples I cited with the queens and female leaders had more to do with society in general, than strictly pertaining to the family and/or church.

         In regards to housekeepers, I cited more than just merely Rahab and Ruth. There were plenty of women who were married that did went out and had jobs/careers outside the house. The Bible mentions women who worked in commercial trade (Prov. 31:16a, 24; Acts 16:14), in agriculture (Josh. 15:17-19; Ruth 2:8; Prov. 31:16b), as millers (Exod. 11:5; Matt. 24:41), as shepherds (Gen. 29:9; Exod. 2:16), as artisans, especially in textiles (Exod. 26:1 NIV; Acts 18:3), as perfumers and cooks (1 Sam. 8:13), as midwives (Exod. 1:15ff), as nurses (Gen. 35:8; Exod. 2:7; 2 Sam. 4:4; 1 Kings 1:4), as domestic servants (Acts 12:13, etc), and as professional mourners (Jer. 9:17). Women could also be patrons (Acts 16:40; Rom. 16:1-2), leaders (Judg. ch 4-5; 2 Sam. 20:16) and ruling queens (1 Kings 10:1ff; Acts 8:27). One Bible woman even built towns (1 Chron. 7:24). Many women, and men, worked from home, yet the Bible nowhere criticises women who worked outside the home, in the public sphere.

         The verses you bring up about housekeeping. However, none of those things are necessarily contradictory to working outside the home. Furthermore, I would personally point out that the two NT passages themselves are not necessarily saying that a woman be confined to the house. but it is important to note that neither Titus 2:3-5 nor 1 Timothy 5:14 represents a definitive statement about the role of Christian women.

         Cassius Dio, a Roman administrator and historian who died in 235 CE, posed this rhetorical question about a good Roman wife and used the word oikouros, but he used a different word for household management. (He also uses the word sōphrōn found in Titus 2:5.)

         For is there anything better than a wife who is chaste (sōphrōn), domestic (oikouros), a good house-keeper (oikonomos), a rearer of children; one to gladden you in health, to tend you in sickness; to be your partner in good fortune, to console you in misfortune; to restrain the mad passion of youth and to temper the unseasonable harshness of old age? (Cassius Dio, Roman Histories 56.3.3 English, Greek)

         Paul’s reason for compliance with social norms was that he did not want the behaviour of the young Christian women to cause controversy and unease in broader society, which might lead to the gospel being given a bad name and being dishonoured by pagan neighbours. Note the last phrase of Titus 2:5: “so that no one will malign the word of God.”

         In 1 Timothy 5:14, Paul uses another word that has a similar meaning to oikourgos. He uses the infinitive of the verb oikodespoteō. The etymology of this word suggests the meaning “to be a house master/ mistress”: oikos = house + despotēs = master or lord.

         LSJ give the meaning of oikodespoteō as “to be master of a house or head of a family” and it cites 1 Timothy 5:14. (See here.) The implication of this word is that the young widows who are being addressed in 1 Timothy 5:14 are relatively wealthy and have largish homes. The activity in view is being in charge of the domestic management of a household.

         A conservative estimate is that one-third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves, and the young wives and widows who Paul was referring to in Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy 5:14 would have had domestic slaves for the more unpleasant, tedious, and difficult domestic duties.

         Paul was not speaking about scrubbing floors or doing the laundry when he used the words oikourgos or oikodespoteō; he was speaking about the management of the home. This would have included the management of slaves and home-based industries such as spinning and weaving that were traditionally undertaken and overseen by the mistress of the home.

         Note also the reason that Paul gives for his instructions to the younger widows: to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. (1 Tim. 5:14). Compare this with Paul’s reason in Titus 2:5: “so that God’s word will not be slandered.”

         The pagan Theano, for example, instructed the younger women to listen to the teaching of older women:

         “Indeed, to you younger women authority has been given by custom to rule over the household slaves once you have been married, but the teaching (didaskalia) ought to come from the older women (presbyterōn) because they are forever giving advice about household management. For it is good first to learn the things you do not know and to consider the counsel of the older women the most suitable; for a young soul must be brought up in these teachings from girlhood.”
         Annette Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2013), 50.

         Yes, I did read your article or rather section/part of your article pertaining to Deborah. I respectfully disagree with it. The part in Judges 4:8-9 where (I’m paraphrasing) about Deborah telling Barak that he will not get glory. The way I see it is is the fact that within the very next chapter, we see the people of Israel singing and the kings/leaders (including Barak) be glorified in Judges 5:1-2. That God can take a regular civilian and untrained combatant like Jael and then successfully lead them in victory against an enemy means that they shouldn’t have to worry.

         To put it another way, When Deborah says “honor will not be yours,” it does not say that Barak should be ashamed. That is a decision based on (1) Israelite cultural context and (2) one’s impression of the meaning of the Hebrew word underlying the English translation “honor.” The conceptual binary of “honor”/“shame” has little to do with *this* Hebrew word, which has more to do with the “credit” for victory and the resultant fame attached to that (which we might translate as “glory”). In fact, Barak sings along with the prophet (5:1), because they seem to be on the same page. That’s a big deal in the Judges period.

         Reply

         1. Kyle or Margaret?,
            Unless I am missing something, it seems like there are only two possibilities:
            You are Margaret, that you choose to write as different men (I found the same comments from you in different places under different names)
            You are not Margaret, but you plagiarize her material. You are using large sections of it word for word without attributing any of it to her.
            So which is it?

            Can you please provide me with some of those translations that use the word creditor instead of woman? Here’s a link showing the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Amplified, and ESV and all of them use the word women. Even though many of these translations have footnotes, none of them have a footnote to say that the word women could be creditors.

            You mentioned the NET and New English Translation. You seemed to mention them as two different translations, but they appear to be the same. Even the translation you mentioned has a footnote saying, “The Hebrew text appears to read literally, “My people, his oppressors, he deals severely, and women rule over them.” You are working incredibly hard to make God’s Word say something but it doesn’t to fit your egalitarian views.

            Regarding shrugging off the egalitarian book, you can shrug off the complementarian books as well. I stand by my point that we can all find materials to support unbiblical views. There are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who write posts promoting abortion and homosexuality. The question is what does God’s Word say. That’s why I disregarded the egalitarian book.

            I know you cited more than Rahab and Ruth, and as I said I stopped responding when it seemed like you didn’t read my post and then I found that you were simply copying and pasting material from someone else’s (or perhaps your) website.

            When Scripture has verses commanding women to be homemakers but you tell me this doesn’t mean that women should be homemakers I don’t think it is worthwhile continuing the conversation. If you choose to disregard the plain teaching of God’s Word, which has repeatedly been the case, then there’s no point in continuing. You are doing the same thing with Deborah.

            She clearly rebuked Barack for not leading, tried not to lead, etc. I feel like you are being intellectually dishonest to support your view. You should allow God’s Word to shape your view versus shaping God’s Word to fit your review.

         2. Hello, Scott! I’m replying to one of my comments, because apparently you disabled the option (I’m assuming) of me responding to your latest reply to me.

            As I’ve said a couple times now already, I’m Kyle Russell, not Margaret Mowzcko. I borrowed some of her material (along with a few others), however I never said I was her. Margaret has no problem at all whatsoever with people borrowing her material. And besides that, her arguments, she borrows from others and is simply a relaying of what she (along with many others) thinks what the Bible says. I really never quoted any of her own words, as much as it was relaying of scholarly material and Bible verses.

            Those respective translations that you mention use the Masoretic text as the underlying Hebrew text for the basis of their Old Testaments. As I’ve already explained to you earlier, the current Masoretic text is a later addition than the Greek LXX or Septuagint which is what I was basing my argument off of. That was before the vowel points were added and thus noshim (“creditors” or “debtors”) could then be legitimately translated as nashim or “women”. Thus, your citation or reference of those respective translations does nothing (really) to address the substantive argument behind my appeal to that rendering of that word. Even historical scholars like Adam Clarke even acknowledge that “debtors” or “creditors” is a legit rendering of that word within that passage. And I also appealed to the surrounding (both preceding and succeeding) context for that rendering. But I digress in that regard.

            In regards to the NET and my alleged “two different translations,” I think you were misunderstanding of that. I never said the “NET” or “New English Translation” as meaning two different translations. Rather, the purpose of my “or” was following the abbreviated term and then spelling out the longer rendering of that abbreviation. Regardless, the NET is not the only translation that renders it as “creditors” but also the Good Word Translation and Brenton’s Septuagint which is an English translation of the Greek LXX are two other ones besides the NET.

            In regards to me “dismissively shrugging off” a complementarian book, I actually would do no such thing. Instead, what I would do is if someone were to cite or reference a book that espouses a complementarian view of gender/gender roles, I would then look at the specific arguments and see whether I find that they have any substance for their specific talking points. If not, then I would show out on a point by point basis, what I find lacking. If I find something to be compelling, then I would reexamine my own positions on a given manner. I find that’s something that not only Christians should be doing pertaining to issues of the Bible, but that which all people should be doing in all aspects of important discussions.

            With all due respect, Scott, I actually read your entire article not only once, but twice. And on certain sections, more than twice. My purpose in bringing up all the examples that pertain to women working outside the household, it wasn’t to overwhelm you as I know the list was quite exhaustive. That wasn’t my intent and I apologize if it came that way. The reason why did gave those rather lengthy examples is because I find that when we try to attribute the Bible on any given subject, we should take in the full counsel of God and not some isolated verses. I find that must be the case for everything, especially when we make the claim of the didactic teaching of Scripture.

            In regards to housewives, I think it’s imperative to keep something in mind. The “keepers of home” (Titus 2:5) and “Managers of the home” (1 Timothy 5:14), as I have shown that they carry a greater context within Greco-Roman culture. I cited examples where that to be the case such as the case with Theano and what Paul was referring to and that can be seen in “not mocked” or “blasphemed” in those two passages. Now with all being said, I’m not saying that Christian women shouldn’t be attending their households or that they shouldn’t strive for a orderly and more cleaning home (and Christian men should as well). I’m just saying that those verses can’t be used to justify Christian women from not having jobs/careers that pertain outside the household. That wasn’t the context of those passages.

            Deborah wasn’t rebuking Barak for not leading. Again, I refer you back to my previous response to you. The Hebrew word for “honor” in that passage had more to do with the credit being attributed to someone else, than it did someone being mocked or not taking the leadership. In fact, we see both Barak and Deborah in the beginning of the next passage being glorified and the people of Israel singing praises to God to give them victory over the Canaanites. Barak is also glorified in Hebrews 11:33-34 which is a chapter dedicated to the faith of the Old Testament saints. Also, Deborah’s leadership is a considered a blessing throughout the chapter. Having a woman as a judge was not a punishment as some suggest, as Israel prospered under Deborah’s leadership (Judg. 5:6–7).

         3. Hello again Kyle,
            Your comment is very lengthy so I pasted it below so that I could respond to each part…

            Hello, Scott! I’m replying to one of my comments, because apparently you disabled the option (I’m assuming) of me responding to your latest reply to me.

            No, I did not. I have it set on my blog to review each comment before they’re posted so that I can prevent spam. That’s why your comments don’t show up right off.

            As I’ve said a couple times now already, I’m Kyle Russell, not Margaret Mowzcko. I borrowed some of her material (along with a few others), however I never said I was her. Margaret has no problem at all whatsoever with people borrowing her material.

            Did she know you are using large sections of it word for word? If not, you should let her know.

            And besides that, her arguments, she borrows from others and is simply a relaying of what she (along with many others) thinks what the Bible says.

            You are almost acting like plagiarism doesn’t exist. Whenever we use people’s material without giving them credit it is not borrowing. It is plagiarizing.

            I really never quoted any of her own words, as much as it was relaying of scholarly material and Bible verses.

            That’s not what I saw when I did a simple search. There were multiple word for word sections.

            Those respective translations that you mention use the Masoretic text as the underlying Hebrew text for the basis of their Old Testaments. As I’ve already explained to you earlier, the current Masoretic text is a later addition than the Greek LXX or Septuagint which is what I was basing my argument off of. That was before the vowel points were added and thus noshim (“creditors” or “debtors”) could then be legitimately translated as nashim or “women”. Thus, your citation or reference of those respective translations does nothing (really) to address the substantive argument behind my appeal to that rendering of that word. Even historical scholars like Adam Clarke even acknowledge that “debtors” or “creditors” is a legit rendering of that word within that passage. And I also appealed to the surrounding (both preceding and succeeding) context for that rendering. But I digress in that regard.

            Why would you use the Septuagint? It almost seems like you are striving to find something that allows you to push your argument. Why not use the original Hebrew? There’s a reason that no legitimate translation support your position. In my previous comment I provided the original Hebrew word for you and it is iššâ. It means woman, wife, female, which is how it’s translated in every Bible. I couldn’t find one translation that said creditor. Click the link to look at the Hebrew word for yourself. It is

            In regards to the NET and my alleged “two different translations,” I think you were misunderstanding of that. I never said the “NET” or “New English Translation” as meaning two different translations. Rather, the purpose of my “or” was following the abbreviated term and then spelling out the longer rendering of that abbreviation.

            That makes sense, sorry for misunderstanding.

            Regardless, the NET is not the only translation that renders it as “creditors” but also the Good Word Translation and Brenton’s Septuagint which is an English translation of the Greek LXX are two other ones besides the NET.

            Did you mean God’s Word translation? Because it says…

            Isaiah 3:12 “Children will oppress my people.
            Women will rule them.
            My people, your guides mislead you,
            and you don’t know which way to go.”

            I have never heard of Brenton’s before. I tried to look it up. If it’s the BRG Bible here’s how it’s translated…

            Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

            Once again, it says women rule over them.

            If you are not referring to the above translations, I can’t even find the translation that you’re referring to, and I’m looking on Bible Gateway, which probably has fifty different translations. And none of the ones I see render any differently than women will rule over you. Again, please consider for a moment why none of these translations support your argument.

            In regards to me “dismissively shrugging off” a complementarian book, I actually would do no such thing. Instead, what I would do is if someone were to cite or reference a book that espouses a complementarian view of gender/gender roles, I would then look at the specific arguments and see whether I find that they have any substance for their specific talking points. If not, then I would show out on a point by point basis, what I find lacking. If I find something to be compelling, then I would reexamine my own positions on a given manner. I find that’s something that not only Christians should be doing pertaining to issues of the Bible, but that which all people should be doing in all aspects of important discussions.

            I appreciate that.

            With all due respect, Scott, I actually read your entire article not only once, but twice. And on certain sections, more than twice. My purpose in bringing up all the examples that pertain to women working outside the household, it wasn’t to overwhelm you as I know the list was quite exhaustive. That wasn’t my intent and I apologize if it came that way. The reason why did gave those rather lengthy examples is because I find that when we try to attribute the Bible on any given subject, we should take in the full counsel of God and not some isolated verses. I find that must be the case for everything, especially when we make the claim of the didactic teaching of Scripture.

            Okay, thank you, but as I started going through your examples, I didn’t think they held up. I started to respond to each one, but as I said earlier, I started to wonder if you copied the information from another post. When I found that you did I stopped going further. I do have another post about wives being helpmeets and I discussed the Proverbs 31 woman in the work she did outside the home. I hope you’ll take a look.

            In regards to housewives, I think it’s imperative to keep something in mind. The “keepers of home” (Titus 2:5) and “Managers of the home” (1 Timothy 5:14), as I have shown that they carry a greater context within Greco-Roman culture. I cited examples where that to be the case such as the case with Theano and what Paul was referring to and that can be seen in “not mocked” or “blasphemed” in those two passages. Now with all being said, I’m not saying that Christian women shouldn’t be attending their households or that they shouldn’t strive for a orderly and more cleaning home (and Christian men should as well). I’m just saying that those verses can’t be used to justify Christian women from not having jobs/careers that pertain outside the household. That wasn’t the context of those passages.

            Once again, it seems like you are taking the plain meaning of the word and changing it to something else. Just to let you know, and I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don’t want to put much effort into this conversation because of this reason. If you can look at God’s Word and say that it doesn’t mean what it plainly says then I’m not sure what I’m going to say that will make any difference. You seem very convinced of your position and you are willing to deny what God’s Word teaches and look for very obscure translations (which I haven’t even been able to find, and which would contradict all of the modern translations I could find) to support you.

            Deborah wasn’t rebuking Barak for not leading. Again, I refer you back to my previous response to you. The Hebrew word for “honor” in that passage had more to do with the credit being attributed to someone else, than it did someone being mocked or not taking the leadership. In fact, we see both Barak and Deborah in the beginning of the next passage being glorified and the people of Israel singing praises to God to give them victory over the Canaanites. Barak is also glorified in Hebrews 11:33-34 which is a chapter dedicated to the faith of the Old Testament saints. Also, Deborah’s leadership is a considered a blessing throughout the chapter. Having a woman as a judge was not a punishment as some suggest, as Israel prospered under Deborah’s leadership (Judg. 5:6–7).

            Again, a simple reading shows that Deborah encouraged Barack to lead, and didn’t want to lead herself. If you don’t want to call her statement to him a rebuke, that’s fine, but there’s no denying that she didn’t want to lead and she wanted him to lead.

      2. Hello, Scott! I didn’t forget you! I was just busy with other things and had to take care of them! Here are my responses to you! I have your statements in parenthesis with my responses under your parenthesized statements.

         ///No, I did not. I have it set on my blog to review each comment before they’re posted so that I can prevent spam. That’s why your comments don’t show up right off.///

         I know that. Just in one of the replies that you did to me, there was no option of “reply,” so I (erroneously) assumed that you turned it off altogether. That’s why I just replied to another comment that had the “reply” option. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

         ///Did she know you are using large sections of it word for word? If not, you should let her know./////

         Yes, I’m actually friends with Margaret on Facebook and we mutually follow each other on Twitter. She is perfectly ok with people quoting her material.

         //////You are almost acting like plagiarism doesn’t exist. Whenever we use people’s material without giving them credit it is not borrowing. It is plagiarizing./////

         I never denied nor does the part of my comment that you are responding to insinuates that plagiarism isn’t a thing. Again, the primary crux or premise that I’m arguing is that what she is saying is simply a relaying of Biblical verses and passages who other people that share the same ideology appeal to. So, when I quoted a section of hers, it’s not that I’m not attributing to her as I acknowledge that I did copy/paste work from her articles, but that merely referencing the passages she cites.

         ///That’s not what I saw when I did a simple search. There were multiple word for word sections./////

         Yes, I never denied that I quoted certain material word for word. I’m saying that to say that I *MERELY* copied/pasted from his not true. I reference my own words in addition to the material cited.

         ///Why would you use the Septuagint? It almost seems like you are striving to find something that allows you to push your argument. Why not use the original Hebrew? There’s a reason that no legitimate translation support your position. In my previous comment I provided the original Hebrew word for you and it is iššâ. It means woman, wife, female, which is how it’s translated in every Bible. I couldn’t find one translation that said creditor. Click the link to look at the Hebrew word for yourself. It is////

         That’s because the Greek LXX/Septuagint is earlier and more ancient than the current Hebrew Masoretic text. We don’t have the original Hebrew Masoretic text or any of the original Hebrew manuscripts that was written. The Greek LXX was translated from the ancient Hebrew and is a better representation or more closer to the originals than the newer Hebrew text. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint multiple times. In Mark 7, Jesus quotes from Isaiah in the Septuagint that’s not mentioned in the Masoretic.

         In regards to the translation of the word. Again, I’m saying before the vowel points were added, the word Nosim would be rendered as “creditors” or “debtors.” With the addition of the vowel points, the Hebrew word would then be rendered as Nasim or in English “women.” Since earlier or ancient Hebrew (not modern) didn’t have vowel points, the likelier reading would be “creditors” and I would argue based upon the preceding and surrounding context of Isaiah 3, that’s a better and more accurate reading than “women.” But I digress.

         ////Did you mean God’s Word translation? Because it says…

         Isaiah 3:12 “Children will oppress my people.
         Women will rule them.
         My people, your guides mislead you,
         and you don’t know which way to go.”/////

         Sorry, another inaccuracy on my part. I meant to say “Good News Translation” or the GNT, not the “Good Word translation” which isn’t even a thing lol. I apologize for that! Here’s how that version reads:

         “Moneylenders oppress my people, and their creditors cheat them. My people, your leaders are misleading you, so that you do not know which way to turn.” Isaiah 3:12 GNT

         ///I have never heard of Brenton’s before. I tried to look it up. If it’s the BRG Bible here’s how it’s translated…

         Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths./////

         The Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint is an English translation of that text that was done some time in the mid 19th century. You can go to Biblehub.com and see how that translation reads. I will quote you it here:

         “O my people, your exactors strip you, and extortioners rule over you: O my people, they that pronounce you blesses lead you astray, and pervert the path of your feet.” – Isaiah 3:12 Brenton’s Septuagint Translation

         /////Once again, it says women rule over them.

         If you are not referring to the above translations, I can’t even find the translation that you’re referring to, and I’m looking on Bible Gateway, which probably has fifty different translations. And none of the ones I see render any differently than women will rule over you. Again, please consider for a moment why none of these translations support your argument.//////

         Again, the other translations that I referenced: The New English Translation (NET), The Good News Translation (GNT) and Brenton’s Septuagint are the ones that read “creditors,” “Exortioners” or “Debtors” and that’s primarily because of the fact that they base their text on the Greek LXX or in the case of the NET, what they believe is the more accurate rendering of the *ORIGINAL* Hebrew.

         ////Okay, thank you, but as I started going through your examples, I didn’t think they held up. I started to respond to each one, but as I said earlier, I started to wonder if you copied the information from another post. When I found that you did I stopped going further. I do have another post about wives being helpmeets and I discussed the Proverbs 31 woman in the work she did outside the home. I hope you’ll take a look.////

         But the examples that I copied/pasted are not something that Margaret created or invented. What I mean by that is there are plenty of other people who share the same views as her and use those examples all the time as justification for what they believe is correct about women in the Bible working outside the home and having careers. I have read that article before commenting and I still don’t see that as being contradictory to what I brought up. I think another important thing is the historical-graphical nature of when those passages were written. Right now, we live in a much more significantly technological advanced society than anything in first century Greco-Roman world or in the ancient Near East. A woman doesn’t have to be in the home as much to get things done. For example, back then in the old days you had to churn things like butter by hand which was quite a lengthy and time consuming process. With massive industrialization, such processes like that are no longer needed. Thus a woman’s time of confinement in the home isn’t as much needed as it was back then to get things done. I think that’s another important thing when mentioning or referencing those passages.

         /////Once again, it seems like you are taking the plain meaning of the word and changing it to something else. Just to let you know, and I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don’t want to put much effort into this conversation because of this reason. If you can look at God’s Word and say that it doesn’t mean what it plainly says then I’m not sure what I’m going to say that will make any difference. You seem very convinced of your position and you are willing to deny what God’s Word teaches and look for very obscure translations (which I haven’t even been able to find, and which would contradict all of the modern translations I could find) to support you./////

         I do appreciate your concern, but with all due respect, I’m not purposefully trying to obscure the meaning of the text. Just as when dealing with what the correct or proper translation of Isaiah 3:12, I also brought up (1) the history of the language of Hebrew with vowel points, (2) the preceding and surrounding context of Isaiah 3 etc. It’s not true that there aren’t “obscure translations,” I gave you three of them already and I’m sure there are others. But I’ve already addressed Isaiah 3, so I’m not going to again in this comment.

         I cited or reference the ancient works within Greco-Roman literature concerning housework and how that related to the two New Testament passages concerning married women’s work in the household (Tit. 2:5 and 1 Tim. 5:14). 1 Tim. 5:14 was about the young widows who are being addressed and are relatively wealthy and have largish homes. The activity in view is being in charge of the domestic management of a household. Paul was not speaking about scrubbing floors or doing the laundry when he used the words oikourgos or oikodespoteō; he was speaking about the management of the home. This would have included the management of slaves and home-based industries such as spinning and weaving that were traditionally undertaken and overseen by the mistress of the home. Same with Titus 2:5.

         ///Again, a simple reading shows that Deborah encouraged Barack to lead, and didn’t want to lead herself. If you don’t want to call her statement to him a rebuke, that’s fine, but there’s no denying that she didn’t want to lead and she wanted him to lead.///

         Sure, I do agree that Deborah encouraged, exhorted and admonished Barak to lead! However, nothing within that passage itself where Deborah didn’t want to participate in it. In fact, when Barak was the one who fought in battle against the Canaanites, he wanted Deborah to come along with him and she did. Both participated in battle and was successful and in the very next chapter, we see them singing praises unto God with the people of Israel.

         Reply

         1. Kyle,
            At this point we are both beginning to repeat ourselves. I think it is abundantly clear by looking at the original Hebrew word and the extensive number of translations that the word is woman versus creditor. You seem to have one translation that says creditors. Almost every other translation says women, and more importantly, I showed you that the Hebrew word is the word for woman. I feel like you are going to great lengths to try to make it say something that it doesn’t to support your egalitarian position.

            The Bible is overwhelmingly clear about the pattern of male leadership. To go further would simply be repeating what my post says. People have to deny the plain teaching of Scripture to come to an egalitarian view.

            For example, you wrote:

            Sure, I do agree that Deborah encouraged, exhorted and admonished Barak to lead! However, nothing within that passage itself where Deborah didn’t want to participate in it.

            I don’t think you are being honest with the text. You acknowledged that she encouraged, exhorted, and admonished Barack to take the troops into battle. She warned him what would happen if he would not go by himself. She clearly did not want to participate.

            I would really like to bring this to an end and agree to disagree.

         2. Hey, Scott! I understand! I respect your wishes! So, this will be last comment here and I will try to make it succinct and concise as possible.

            I cited 3 translations of modern English translations of the Bible (NET, GNT and Brenton’s LXX) which support my argument for the original Hebrew which at the time didn’t have vowel which would then render it as “creditors” and “debtors”. Other commentators like Adam Clarke agree with this as well. So, I’m not going out of the way to try to support my argument. It has both linguistic and historical support. But I respectfully digress!

            In regards to male leadership, I would say men are clearly leaders and we see throughout the Bible of such. However, I don’t think that negates the fact that women can and are often leaders in the Bible as well and I think I gave my support for that as well! Regardless, I digress in that respect as well.

            In regards to Deborah and Barak, the exhortation, admonition etc. wasn’t about so much Barak not leading, as it was God using other people (in this case, Jael) to bring death to Sisera! I mentioned that in previous comments of mine. Nothing in the text implies or insinuates that Deborah didn’t want to participate as she even willingly went with him in battle. And the people of Israel, including both Barak and Deborah sing praises unto God, the next chapter for such actions that were taken.

            I will end on this note! And say that while the discussions were quite lengthy in nature, I did enjoy our discussions despite our disagreement on the numerous subtopics of the overall issue at hand.

            God Bless, Scott! Continue to have a wonderful time doing what you’re doing!

         3. Hello again Kyle,
            Thank you for your understanding. I have appreciated your attitude throughout this discussion.

            Yes, I know you cited some other translations, but they are incredibly obscure. I had not even heard of two of them and I commonly look at multiple translations. The vast majority of commentaries state that it is women versus creditors. You should ask yourself why none of the common translations support your view, and more importantly why the Old Testament Hebrew does not support your view. The Hebrew word is women versus creditors. But even if we disregard that verse there’s the overwhelming pattern of Scripture supporting male leadership.

            I respect Adam Clarke and have used his commentary numerous times, so I was surprised you said he supported your view. I just checked, and he does not. He wrote…

            This verse might be read, “The collectors of grapes shall be their oppressors; and usurers (noshim, instead of nashim, women) shall rule over them.”

            He also said that women shall rule over them.

            We are repeating ourselves. To respond further to your comments on Debra and Barak would simply be to repeat what I have said in my comments and in the post itself.

            I too have appreciated the discussion. God bless you as well, Kyle.

         4. Hello, Scott!

            Although I did promise that would be my last comment, I do want to touch on just ONE thing and that was about Adam Clarke!

            When I mentioned Adam Clarke, I meant the fact that he acknowledges that “usurers” (also can be translated as “creditors”) is a legitimate reading or rendering of Isaiah 3:12. And he mentions how in the original Hebrew (before the vowels were added), that the likelier Hebrew word was “Noshim” instead of “Nashim” which would support that rendering instead of “women” (Heb. Nashim)! Which is something that I initially argued for! But I digress again!

            God Bless!

         5. Kyle,
            Okay, I think we are reading his words differently. I don’t think he is arguing that creditors is a legitimate reading of Isaiah 3:12.

         6. I think he does by the quote you cited from him. “Might be read” suggests to me that he is aware of a textual variant or translation difference regardless of whether he prefers that term or not! But I digress respectfully!

         7. Okay, thanks Kyle.

3. Scott well written. I always find it eye opening in the argument about Deborah to simply look up the Hebrew word for a female prophetess.

   Reply

   1. Larry,
      Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      Reply

4. Dear Scott,

   Thank you so much for your God-inspired biblically-based teaching! It’s a message that I’m very passionate about, and is dear to my heart.
   https://www.scottlapierre.org/male-leadership-in-the-bible/

   Your teaching was not only spot on, but also your comments to women like Jackie. It’s a message that needs to be at the FOREFRONT of churches in this Laodicean Church age. I’d like to personally discuss it with you in more detail, and would like to discuss with you about sharing your teaching with my readers/visitors worldwide. Also, I’d love to connect with you personally, and learn more about your ministry.

   Abundant Blessings in Christ,

   David 🙂

   Reply

   1. David,
      Thank you for letting me know. I’m blessed that my post ministered to you. I enjoyed the conversation on the phone with you the other day. God bless!

      Reply

5. Hi Michael,
   Thanks for reading and commenting.

   I think it depends what you mean by “downplaying the establishment of Deborah as a judge.” I definitely wasn’t trying to do that. My attempt was to speak positively of Deborah. For example, I concluded by saying:

   If there is an example to be followed here, it is Deborah. She encouraged Barak to lead, told him what God desired of him, and rebuked him when he would not take charge…Her story should motivate women to do what she did.

   You said, “The text clearly shows that it was an ordination from God.” Where does it clearly show that? I don’t want to repeat the info I have in my post, but the commentary on Judges 4:4 and the argument from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is very strong.

   You said “God worked through Deborah.” I completely agree with you! But just because God uses someone, or uses a situation, doesn’t suddenly make it prescriptive (versus descriptive) or approve the decisions and actions of the individuals involved.

   I also agree with everything you said about God using the weak. Judges in general seems to be a case-study supporting your point…and I would say my life has been that as well :).

   You said, “In that culture, to have a woman leading was just another sign that God can use ANYONE he calls to accomplish His purposes.” It’s definitely true that God can use anyone He calls to accomplish His purposes. Whether it’s a man, woman, donkey (Balaam), fish (Jonah), etc. But just because God uses people doesn’t legitimize the situation or their actions. For example, keeping with the book of Judges, God used Samson’s disobedience with Philistine women to punish the Philistines. Judges 14:3-4 says:

   3 Then his father and mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?”
   And Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she pleases me well.”
   4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

   Yes, God used Samson’s disobedience for good, but we don’t look at this and think we should go out and marry people when we’re unequally yoked. Thank you for the discussion!

   Reply

6. Scripture does not state that Barack is the leader of the army but through the context of the passage that we read that thought is implied. Through the context of what we read about Deborah, the Bible whether announced or not says that she was a judge and a prophet. When we look at the definition of the Hebrew word sent, a primitive root; to send away, for, or out and the word called through the idea of accosting a person met]; to call out to (i.e., properly address by name). Accosting means approaching or speaking to someone aggressively. Does not sound like you’re stating that she went against his will it sounds more like that you’re saying that the Bible is incorrect in what has been presented to us.
   As far as her being the leader let me ask you a question. Has your mom ever been a little perturbed with you and given you a command in the form of a question? I bet it didn’t take you long to figure out who was in charge! There are many things that are not stated in the Bible but because of the context that we read it is implied and we are from there to discern what God intends for us to receive with the help of His Holy Spirit!
   I was going to go in length and depth in this article, but I think I’m going to stop here it hurts me to see us splitting hairs while people are going to hell in a handbasket because we are jockeying for the choicest seats in the house! Do you really think that those that come to believe in Jesus Christ by hearing preaching or being taught by a woman WILL make a difference in the end!
   I have been assisting a local church on two Sundays of the month because they do not have a pastor and have not had one since December of 2021. It is a small congregation it existed around 30 before COVID. Since then, it has dwindled to about 10 ladies ranging between the ages of 50 and 80. These women have often had to go without hearing the preached word simply because they say that women cannot preach or speak in the church. Imagine coming to church for Sunday school and hymns. What man does that?
   Male leadership in the church is on the decline and for us to sit around and blame it on feminism come on let’s get real any man that I know, including yours truly, has to feel that there’s a need for anything that exists in his life or he’s not going to keep it there. We are failing miserably in our ability to highlight the need of God in the life of his people!
   The believer now lives, thank you, Jesus, under the power of GRACE so if we don’t get it all right Jesus has paid the full price for our mistakes in the past, present, and future. He says” if I be lifted up I will draw all men”. One of the connotations of the word in the Greek definition of the draw is the word Drag. It means that before men go to heaven or before they go to hell, they’ll have to pass by Jesus, not the pulpit!

   Reply

7. Hello Scott,
   Great article. You say Deborah was not called; however, how does one become a prophetess without being called? Are you suggesting she was self appointed?

   Reply

   1. Juanita,
      Regarding her being called I was referring to the office of Judge, not profit us. Also I am not disputing that she was a judge and prophetess. I am simply stating she stands in contrast to numerous other judges whom have an accompanying verse identifying their calling from God to serve as a judge. Without that support it looks like Debra occupied the office outside of God’s perfect will. And to be clear, I don’t think this is so much a reflection of her as it is a reflection of the spiritual condition of the days of the judges.

      Reply

      1. We lesser beings get it Scott, women are the shit under the shoes of men. G0d is a man who hates the lowest of the low females.

         Reply

         1. Susan, it seems that you are the one who loathes the woman and the created order. All too often people see leadership as the high or higher calling. Simply not so. I wonder if you would say the same about Christ who was subject unto the Father. Christ made himself a servant, lower than the angels and yet in complete equality with God. God is a God of order and has designed booth men and women to be a part of that order. Yet the scripture is clear that in the Body of Christ there is not man or woman, but all are Christians, and joint heirs of the promise, yet that does not make void the need for order.

         2. Larry,
            I agree with you about people seeing leadership as the high or higher calling. I would argue that a very high calling, and the highest calling for women, is described here:

            Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

            Unfortunately, this calling is not attractive to many women. To encourage women to do what God’s Word says is to be chauvinistic.

            Great point about Christ Himself. I frequently bring up His submission to His Father in discussions about submission and headship, because to say that a wife is inferior to her husband for submitting to Him is to say that Christ is inferior to the Father for submitting to Him. Yet Jesus claimed equality.

         3. Susan you’re exactly right that’s what men like Scott believe

         4. Helen,
            Thank you for reading and commenting. I received your email as well.

            Can you please let me know what you believe I wrote that is unbiblical? If I am wrong about something I want to know.

8. Hi Mr. LaPierre,
   I stumbled upon your website while searching for further explanations of Judges 4-5 after reading this article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146107914564823.
   I’ve been asked to write a paper reflecting on the above article for my Old Testament class at college. The given prompt mentions that Deborah is the only judge said to be a prophet & therefore was remembered as a significant leader in Israel’s early history. I’m supposed to talk about how gender is important in the portrayal of Deborah by the male authors of Scripture. My initial thought was the switching of the common gender roles was important, but your argument that the focus is on criticism of Barak rather than praise of Deborah seems a lot more Biblical & logical to me. However, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that male authors would willingly write Judges in such a way that continuously points out their flaws and weaknesses. Any thoughts on this?

   Reply

   1. Hello Hannah,
      Nice to hear from you. Good thoughts and question. My answer would be that the Book of Judges, like the rest of Scripture, should be viewed as an accurate, historical document. The accounts are recorded as they occurred, including the weaknesses and failures of the individuals involved. It has been a blessing to me on numerous occasions, and I assume it has encouraged others as well, that God has chosen to write so honestly about even the great heroes of the faith. They were sinful humans, like me, yet God still used them in wonderful ways.

      Reply

9. Hi Scott,
   I’m taking an Old Testament class, and I have to write a 3-5 page paper on a women of the Old Testament, from the book of Genesis to the book of Ruth. Of course, I chose to write about Deborah because I believe that GOD, in his infinite wisdom decided to use her as a prophetess and a judge to Israel.

   The Bible tells us that GOD’s ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. He is the Creator, and I believe that He decides who He will use to accomplish His Will. I do not understand why you don’t believe that Deborah was appointed by GOD just because the text failed to say so.

   If GOD used a donkey to accomplish His Will, what makes you think that He did not appoint Deborah. How can you be a true prophet without GOD. Deborah was a true prophet of GOD. She had to be appointed by GOD, if not nothing she said or did would have had fruition.

   What I see in most of the comments made by men that GOD doesn’t want women to lead men are wounded male egos. Wasn’t the man totally incomplete without woman. Didn’t GOD give Adam Eve as his helpmeet? Not only that, didn’t Adam follow Eve when she disobeyed GOD? He didn’t take the led and say, NO! GOD said not to eat of that tree. If he had, I imagine things would have turned out much different for mankind period.

   I do believe that GOD really and truly wanted man to led, to be the head, but let’s face it, because Adam followed Eve in the beginning, women have exercised power over the leadership of men ever since. I believe that JESUS chose 12 men as His disciples, in the beginning, because of the way women were viewed and treated by man throughout history. They had no voice, but because of the Gospel, now women have received the same charge as men, to go therefore making disciples of all people to the uttermost part of the earth, period. I believe we are equal in the LORD, in our marriages, and in the Church, and we should treat each other as such.

   My paper is to reflect on Deborah’s role in scripture, and how she could be a role model for women in the Church today. I want to thank you, and everyone else for their comments, because now I have several new points of interest to write about in my paper.

   Reply

   1. Hello Jackie,
      I’m glad you were able to find my post. Thank you for reading and commenting. I decided to simply paste your comment below to respond to different parts of it…

      Hi Scott. I’m taking an Old Testament class, and I have to write a 3-5 page paper on a women of the Old Testament, from the book of Genesis to the book of Ruth. Of course, I chose to write about Deborah because I believe that GOD, in his infinite wisdom decided to use her as a prophetess and a judge to Israel.

      Do you believe God also decided to use Jezebel and Athaliah as queens to rule over Israel and Judah? If not, why do you believe that God chose Deborah but not them?

      The Bible tells us that GOD’s ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. He is the Creator, and I believe that He decides who He will use to accomplish His Will. I do not understand why you don’t believe that Deborah was appointed by GOD just because the text failed to say so.

      I don’t believe the Deborah was appointed by God, because the text doesn’t tell us that He did. We don’t speak into silence. In other words we build our case from what Scripture says, not from what it doesn’t say. You are saying that God appointed Deborah, but Scripture doesn’t say that. I am saying that there’s no mention of Deborah being appointed by God, which is true.

      If GOD used a donkey to accomplish His Will, what makes you think that He did not appoint Deborah. How can you be a true prophet without GOD. Deborah was a true prophet of GOD. She had to be appointed by GOD, if not nothing she said or did would have had fruition.

      God also used Judas to accomplish his will, but it doesn’t defend Judas’s actions. I am not comparing Deborah’s actions with Judas’s. I am simply making the point that just because God uses someone’s actions doesn’t defend the person’s actions.

      Actually, Deborah’s actions are a great argument for male headship, because she kept trying to get a man to lead.

      Again, I would go back to what I already wrote. You are speaking into silence to say that God appointed her, when the text doesn’t say that. Also, would you similarly say that God appointed Jezebel and Athaliah?

      What I see in most of the comments made by men that GOD doesn’t want women to lead men are wounded male egos. Wasn’t the man totally incomplete without woman.

      No, I wouldn’t say that, or else how do we explain some people having the gift of singleness and being complete without a spouse?

      Didn’t GOD give Adam Eve as his helpmeet? Not only that, didn’t Adam follow Eve when she disobeyed GOD? He didn’t take the led and say, NO! GOD said not to eat of that tree. If he had, I imagine things would have turned out much different for mankind period.

      I can’t believe you just used this as an example as it completely argues against your case and supports male headship. God established Adam’s headship prior to The Fall and the devil attacked it. He tempted Eve to usurp Adam’s leadership and then Adam submitted to Eve. Their roles were reversed and it was disastrous. We see the same with Abraham and Sarah and then Ahab and Jezebel.

      I do believe that GOD really and truly wanted man to led, to be the head, but let’s face it, because Adam followed Eve in the beginning, women have exercised power over the leadership of men ever since.

      You are absolutely correct. God said that as a result of the fall women would want to control their husbands, but men were still expected to lead. Again, I’m surprised that you wrote this.

      I believe that JESUS chose 12 men as His disciples, in the beginning, because of the way women were viewed and treated by man throughout history.

      I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples because women have been mistreated? Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples, because it follows the pattern of male leadership that is established throughout Scripture. The patriarchs were men. The covenants were made with men. The tribes were named after men. God chose kings to rule over Israel versus Queens. The 12 disciples were men and then the 70 were also men.

      They had no voice, but because of the Gospel, now women have received the same charge as men, to go therefore making disciples of all people to the uttermost part of the earth, period.

      The New Testament does not support men and women having identical charges. If anything it is the opposite; men and women have different roles and responsibilities and are given different commands. Any honest reading of the New Testament recognizes this. Read Titus 2 to see what is said to women, and there are no comparable passages for men. Read Ephesians 5 to see the different commands for husbands and wives.

      I believe we are equal in the LORD, in our marriages, and in the Church, and we should treat each other as such.

      I believe we are equal as well, but equal doesn’t mean identical. People can be equal and have different responsibilities and roles.

      My paper is to reflect on Deborah’s role in scripture, and how she could be a role model for women in the Church today. I want to thank you, and everyone else for their comments, because now I have several new points of interest to write about in my paper.

      I’m glad my post helped you with your paper, but I’m saddened that it seems like you are taking away the opposite understanding of what is intended.

      Reply

10. Thank you for this article. I found it after watching a video about Deborah. Voddie Baucham said the days of Deborah were not prosperous and her private leadership was a sign of judgment. I briefly thanked the person who uploaded the video and agreed. Within minutes a woman wrote me a research paper about the significance of Deborah’s leadership and call from God. I’m amazed at the indoctrination. Feminism has reached many , “Christian” churches and Bible studies. I’m a bit heart broken about it. I read many of these comments and wanted to thank you for standing firm in Christ.

    Reply

    1. Mary Ann,
       Thank you for reading and commenting. I agree with Voddie Baucham, because that’s what the Bible says: “My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths” (Isaiah 3:12).

       Women ruling over the people is a sign of God’s judgment. Yes, it is heartbreaking how much feminism has crept into the church. Male leadership being God’s pattern is obvious for anyone who wants to be intellectually honest with Scripture.

       Reply

       1. We lowly females get it Scott, God is a man who hates females. What kind of god thinks 50% humans need to live on their knees??

          Reply

          1. Susan, why such the low view of women?

          2. Larry,
             Well said. Although Susan seems to despise a low view of women on one hand, she is the one who was presenting that low view in the comments.

    2. Do you mind sharing the video you found of Voddie talking about Deborah?
       Thank you.

       Reply

       1. Rebecca,
          Good request. I would also like to see it!

          Reply

11. In the Torah, Israel was commanded to appoint Judges and Officers in all the gates given to them by God in (Deuteronomy 16:18-19). The qualifications for a Judge are given in (Exodus 18:21-24). The qualifications only mention men, and the role of Judge is connected to military leadership, which is why almost all judges besides Samuel were warriors. This is because a prophet’s primary role is to declare the word of God and lead the people in spiritual affairs. This is why Deborah did not lead any men in war or otherwise. She also would have made the military camp unclean during her menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19-23). Also, note that whenever a prophetess is mentioned in scripture, her relation to a man (father, brother or husband) is always mentioned. The only exceptions are the two false prophetesses mentioned in Nehemiah 6:14 and Revelation 2:20. Also, the first mention of a prophetess is Mariam the sister of Moses. In (Exodus 15:20) it mentions her as leading a procession of women in praising the Lord. No men were being led by her. Note as well that only male descendants of Aaron could be Priests, and also that Israel had no queens, only Kings (Deuteronomy 17:14-15). The only “queens” mentioned are either wayward women like Jezebel or queen translates actually to the Hebrew word gebiyrah, which means queen-mother.

    Reply

    1. Zarach,
       Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with what you wrote.

       Reply

12. Scott-
    Thank you for your exegesis concerning this topic. While I appreciate the dialogue between you and the responders, I find it quite disturbing and extremely disrespectful to say the least of some of the remarks of people who call themselves Christians (let alone adults) attacking your character and with childish name calling. When someone disagrees and can’t take the truth unfortunately the sinfulness (and ignorance) of the heart is revealed. If you disagree with Scott please agree to disagree and then move on.

    Reply

    1. Hello Tim,
       Thank you for reading and commenting. In a sense, I would rather that they attack me than Scripture. It shows that they don’t really have a biblical argument against what I’ve written. God bless!

       Reply

13. Hi Scott,
    Add it to your arguments: If Deborah was partially some kind of Israel leader, and was not an error or an exception, why roughly a 1,000 years later, Jesus did not raise a woman again or ever?

    Reply

    1. Roberto,
       Thank you for reading and commenting. Good point. You are correct that the isolated nature of this event argues against it being normative or expected.

       Reply

14. Scott would the verse in Corinthians, “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial” apply to the story of Deborah? My church family has adopted women to lead in worship service and I can first hand tell you it has disappointed and discouraged me from taking responsibility to lead.

    Reply

    1. Hello Christopher,
       Good question, but I don’t think so. I think that verse refers to the amoral, versus the moral or immoral. The moral is beneficial and the immoral is detrimental and harmful. In the case of Deborah, because a woman’s leadership over men contradict as scripture it would not be permissible, or in other words, amoral. Instead it would be immoral and detrimental.

       Thank you for sharing your testimony. I think it’s common that when women lead, men are not as inclined to lead. I’ve heard women say that they have to lead because a man doesn’t, if a woman wants a man to lead she should ensure she doesn’t lead so he feels burdened to do so.

       Reply

       1. Got it Scott, your man god created women to be lesser beings, sex slaves and sandwich makers. So you think that God hates women as much as you do!!!! No female would ever worship your female hating god. Now don’t you have some females’ to beat up for thinking they are human???

          Reply

15. There is certainly a difference between the leadership of judging the entire Israel (Deborah’s Role) and the leadership of leading the warriors to battle (Barak’s Role). It is certain that women usually didn’t go to war in those days, so Deborah would not lead the men to war but remained a leader in judging the matters of the people of Israel.

    Reply

    1. Hi Daniel,
       Yes, you’re right. Maybe something is escaping my mind, but I can’t even think of any examples in the Bible of women going to battle. Considering God’s desires for the gender roles, and especially 1 Peter 3:7 discussing women being physically weaker, it’s evident He wouldn’t want women at war.

       Reply

16. Scott,
    I couldn’t agree with you more on this topic. This passage is clearly one where gender specific roles are a key component! It is sad and shocking to see the feministic views coming into the church at such an alarming rate. By studying the truth written in God’s Word I and my wife we’re able to have our eyes opened to the lies being taught and widely accepted. We did leave our church and continue to stand for the truth written in scripture. It’s not been an easy road but God has blessed us greatly through this by drawing closer to us as we drew closer to Him!!

    Thank you for standing firm upon the Word of God and speaking the truth to the world. You are an encouragement to me and to many others.

    Reply

    1. Hi Travis,
       That’s good to hear. Truth sets us free. There’s blessing from embracing what God’s Word says, whether it’s hard or easy to swallow.

       Your words about me are an encouragement. Thank you!

       Reply

17. Deborah didn’t tell Barak to lead, she lead him to do his job as a military general, she wasn’t giving him her job as judge of Israel. You are reading into something that isn’t there.

    Same with victory being in the hands of a woman – Jael’s gender isn’t the point, her willingness is. She didn’t say ‘I will only do this if someone else does it with me’ as Barak did, she just seizes the moment and because of that she receives the honor. It’s that simple.

    Remember God is Spirit and we are always called first to be citizens of heaven before anything we define ourselves by here on earth, including gender.
    The story of Deborah, Barak and Jael is a spiritual lesson for everyone about obedience to the Lord, not male and female leadership. Do you get it?

    Open your eyes to the things unseen, for man judges upon appearances but the Lord looks on the heart.

    Your other points are so far fetched and lacking in love I won’t even touch on them.

    Reply

    1. Hi Elle,
       Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. I copied your comment and responded below different parts of it…

       Deborah didn’t tell Barak to lead, she lead him to do his job as a military general,

       I’ll let the text speak for itself. In Judges 4:6 she said, ““Has not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun.’”

       she wasn’t giving him her job as judge of Israel. You are reading into something that isn’t there.

       Correct, but I never said she made him a judge.

       Same with victory being in the hands of a woman – Jaels gender isn’t the point, her willingness is.

       The fact that Jael was a woman is a huge point. Debroah used that as a threat to Barak. In Judges 4:9 she said, “And she said, ‘I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.’”

       She didn’t say ‘I will only do this if someone else does it with me’ as Barak did, she just seizes the moment and because of that she receives the honor. It’s that simple.

       Anyone being honest with the text can see Deborah resisted leading the troops. Instead, she told Barak that God commanded him to lead them.

       Remember God is Spirit and we are always called first to be citizens of heaven before anything we define ourselves by here on earth, including gender.

       If that was true there wouldn’t be specific commands in Scripture for men and women/husbands and wives.

       The story of Deborah, Barak and Jael is a spiritual lesson for everyone about obedience to the Lord, not male and female leadership. Do you get it?

       Yes, the account with Deborah and Barak deals with obedience, but if it didn’t deal with male leadership then Deborah would have led the troops herself.

       Open your eyes to the things unseen, for man judges upon appearances but the Lord looks on the heart.
       Your other points are so far fetched and lacking in love I won’t even touch on them.

       It’s not unloving to tell people the truth.

       Reply

18. Hi Scott
    ,Before going to your 5 reasons, let’s notice that Judges 2:16-19 shows us that the meaning of the word translated as ‘judge’ or ‘leader’ here refers to a deliverer raised up by God, not merely a judge. Let’s also notice the context. Deborah’s story exemplifies a theme that God calls and uses people without being bound by how they are ranked by human culture. The story immediately preceding is the story of Ehud, the left-handed deliverer (Judg. 3:12–30). In ancient Near East culture, the right hand was associated with strength, authority and wisdom; the left with weakness, foolishness and waywardness (Gen 48:12-20; Exod 15:6, 12; Isa 48:13; Ps 110:1; Eccl 10:2; Matt 25:33, 41). The story after Deborah’s is that of Gideon, the youngest member of the weakest clan (Judg. 6:15). God’s call to leadership is not excluded by left-handedness (Ehud), by gender (Deborah), by the customs favoring the eldest son (Gideon) or by human weakness (Gideon again).
    1. There’s no mention of Deborah being appointed by God? Ok, those exact words are not used. But the text presents her leadership as God-given. In 4:3 the oppressed people are crying to the Lord for help. In 4:4 Deborah is the judge/leader of Israel. In the rest of chapters 4 and 5, following the agenda set by 2:16, Deborah is the leader through whom God delivers them, with the very satisfactory conclusion in 5:31 that the land had peace for 40 years. See also the inspired song at 5:6-7 – there was no relief until Deborah arose. So, as far as the Bible is concerned, God here raises up a woman to exercise leadership over men.
    2. Deborah’s ministry was private not public? But this can’t be supported from the text. Justice was delivered in public (Deut 17:5; Josh 20:6, 9; Isa 29:21; Amos 5:10, 12, 15). The palm tree where she sat (Judg 4:5) was therefore a public place. And even if her decisions had been given privately, by making them she still exercised authority over men.
    3. Deborah “encouraged” Barak to lead? But in the text the nature of the encouragement is that she summons Barak and instructs him to take Israel into battle. This does not diminish her authority but highlights it.
    4. Deborah rebuked Barak for failing to lead? If 4:9 is a rebuke, it is for his reluctance to obey the command which she delivered to him in 4:6-7. This does not contradict God’s call to Deborah to be the commander in chief who instructed Barak how to lead the army.
    5. The story is descriptive, not prescriptive? But the central question here is: does the Bible insist on a general principle which requires leadership to be male only, or does the story of Deborah show that God may choose to call a woman to a position of leadership over men? It shows God’s call to a woman to lead.

    Reply

    1. Hi Andrew,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. I responded below…

       Hi Scott. Before going to your 5 reasons, let’s notice that Judges 2:16-19 shows us that the meaning of the word translated as ‘judge’ or ‘leader’ here refers to a deliverer raised up by God, not merely a judge.

       I don’t deny that judges were leaders, but where is the word translated as “leader”? Yes, those verses say the judged were raised up by God, and it frequently says that through the book…except in Deborah’s case…which is why it’s so significant. That’s actually my point. It does NOT say that God raised her up as He did with the others.

       Let’s also notice the context. Deborah’s story exemplifies a theme that God calls and uses people without being bound by how they are ranked by human culture. The story immediately preceding is the story of Ehud, the left-handed deliverer (Judg. 3:12–30). In ancient Near East culture, the right hand was associated with strength, authority and wisdom; the left with weakness, foolishness and waywardness (Gen 48:12-20; Exod 15:6, 12; Isa 48:13; Ps 110:1; Eccl 10:2; Matt 25:33, 41). The story after Deborah’s is that of Gideon, the youngest member of the weakest clan (Judg. 6:15). God’s call to leadership is not excluded by left-handedness (Ehud), by gender (Deborah), by the customs favoring the eldest son (Gideon) or by human weakness (Gideon again).
       1. There’s no mention of Deborah being appointed by God? Ok, those exact words are not used. But the text presents her leadership as God-given. In 4:3 the oppressed people are crying to the Lord for help. In 4:4 Deborah is the judge/leader of Israel. In the rest of chapters 4 and 5, following the agenda set by 2:16, Deborah is the leader through whom God delivers them, with the very satisfactory conclusion in 5:31 that the land had peace for 40 years. See also the inspired song at 5:6-7 – there was no relief until Deborah arose. So, as far as the Bible is concerned, God here raises up a woman to exercise leadership over men.

       I’m with you on everything you said except the last sentence. I don’t want to repeat what I said above, but it’s very significant that it does NOT say God raised up Deborah. You’re saying something Scripture doesn’t say.

       2. Deborah’s ministry was private not public? But this can’t be supported from the text. Justice was delivered in public (Deut 17:5; Josh 20:6, 9; Isa 29:21; Amos 5:10, 12, 15). The palm tree where she sat (Judg 4:5) was therefore a public place. And even if her decisions had been given privately, by making them she still exercised authority over men.

       Here’s what Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology, page 942: “Deborah was different from other male prophets in that she did not prophesy in public, only in private (Judges 4:5; Huldah does the same in 2 Kings 22:14-20); she handed over her leadership role to a man (Judges 4:6-7); and, although God did bring blessing through her, it is interesting that there is no explicit affirmation of the fact that the Lord raised her up, making her unlike the other major judges, for whom there is explicit statement of their calling from God.”

       3. Deborah “encouraged” Barak to lead? But in the text the nature of the encouragement is that she summons Barak and instructs him to take Israel into battle. This does not diminish her authority but highlights it.

       She didn’t command him as you’re saying. She told him what God said. God commanded him to go. I used the word “encouraged,” but I could just as easily write that she told Barak that God commanded him (not her) to lead.

       4. Deborah rebuked Barak for failing to lead? If 4:9 is a rebuke, it is for his reluctance to obey the command which she delivered to him in 4:6-7. This does not contradict God’s call to Deborah to be the commander in chief who instructed Barak how to lead the army.

       No, it is a rebuke for his reluctance to obey what God commanded him to do. Where do you see God calling Deborah to be the commander-in-chief? The text presents the opposite in that God wanted Barak in that position as Deborah relayed to him.

       5. The story is descriptive, not prescriptive? But the central question here is: does the Bible insist on a general principle which requires leadership to be male only,

       Absolutely! That is a theme of Scripture.

       or does the story of Deborah show that God may choose to call a woman to a position of leadership over men? It shows God’s call to a woman to lead.

       It shows the opposite. Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to lead. I’m not sure how it could be clearer?

       Reply

19. Hey Scott,

    Thanks for the article! I know you have received some push back on point #1, with the retort, “Shamgar was not appointed by God.” Perhaps the more simple solution is that Shamgar is not one of the major judges. He’s more akin to Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, & Abdon.

    While a creative solution, I do not agree with Tanya’s solution. Shamgar seems to be a positive character both in his close association with Ehud (the unlikely deliverer), as well as his association with Jael (the righteous Gentile deliverer).

    I would say Deborah’s role, although it included judging of some form (Judg 4:4), was not the same as the other major judges of the time. And certainly it is not a proof text for female headship in the church. If so, her absence is conspicuous in the lists that appear which include Barak but not Deborah in 1 Sam 12:9-11 and Hebrews 11:32. The main conflict in the narrative is Deborah trying to convince Barak to take up the mantle of leadership that God has clearly called for him to do.

    I would say Deborah is a paradigmatic of positive female influence. She is a “mother of Israel (5:7).” One who encourage people to follow the Lord. She uses her relational influence to encourage men to lead, and give themselves willingly on behalf of others (5:2,7,18). It seems to me, the praises in her song of biblical masculinity are a foreshadowing of Eph 5:25 and Christ himself.

    Thanks again for the great article. Preaching this text Sunday!

    Reply

    1. Hi Kyle,
       Thanks for reading and commenting! I was going to break up your comment and respond below different statements, but I realized all my comments were pretty much the same: “Well said, I agree.” ?.

       I will say your comment about her positive female influence is very good. To recognize the different calls God has on men and women isn’t to minimize or deny the ways God has used them and will continue to do so. There are many wonderful, godly women in Scripture, and it’s unfortunate when egalitarians act as though a complementarian view denies that.

       Are your sermons recorded? If so, I’d like to hear it. Here’s the link to my sermon on the topic. Be glad to hear your thoughts.

       Reply

20. Scott,
    I truly appreciated your article on Deborah and the reasons why it shows male leadership. My wife and I have been learning a lot in this area over the last 8 months and yesterday during our worship service there was a prayer calling women to co-lead at church. This did not sit well with my spirit and after speaking to the pastor about it, he gave Deborah as an example of female leadership. This has been a tremendous eye opener for me and thank you for it. It amazes me how God gives us what we need at the right time. Your original entry was in 2017 and I’m seeing it just when I needed to. Praise God! Any other information or insight you can offer would be great!! Thanks.

    Reply

    1. Hi Travis,
       I’ve received lots of questions from people asking when they should leave a church. Typically I tell people to stay strive to be an instrument of change, unless they start to be perceived as divisive. I would consider a church’s desire to see women co-leading as a dealbreaker. This shows such a departure from God’s Word that I’d doubt your ability to rectify it. In other words, you’d probably be labeled divisive if you worked to move the church from this direction. I appreciate your sensitivity to what you saw and that it burdened you to go to the pastor. That was the right thing to do.

       Reply

    2. Oh dear. Travis, that’s not your Spirit not sitting well with it. Continue to learn about how this story is all about obedience to the Lord and gender is irrelevant. This article by Scott is littered with misinterpretations and he has misunderstood it and missed the entire point. He is leading you astray. This is why guys like him are dangerous. No true theologian or historian would agree with his twisted, extremely abstract views. Honestly, I’ve never read such rubbish as what he typed about the incredible leader Deborah. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Please grow in your understanding of the character of God and don’t make big life choices based on articles on the internet. Be careful.

       Reply

       1. Travis,
          Elle said:

          gender is irrelevant.

          A surface reading of the story reveals gender is one of the most important aspects. If gender was of no consequence then Deborah would’ve led and she wouldn’t have threatened Barak by telling him, “the LORD will Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Judges 4:9).

          Also, if gender was irrelevant, we wouldn’t see specific commands for men and women/husbands and wives in Scripture.

          Elle said:

          No true theologian or historian would agree with his twisted, extremely abstract views.

          This makes me wonder if she read the article. I quoted Wayne Grudem who wrote the most respected and established Systematic Theology. The quote itself is from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, which is published by Crossway, and endorsed by:
          ―Richard Mayhue, Research Professor of Theology, The Master’s Seminary
          ―Mary A. Kassian, author, Girls Gone Wise
          ―John Piper, Founder and Teacher, desiringGod.org; Chancellor, Bethlehem College & Seminary; author, Desiring God
          ―Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth, author, Adorned; Teacher and Host, Revive Our Hearts
          ―R. Albert Mohler Jr., President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
          ―J. I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College
          ―J. Ligon Duncan III, Chancellor, CEO, and John E. Richards Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary
          ―Alistair Begg, Senior Pastor, Parkside Church, Chagrin Falls, Ohio
          ―Diane Passno, Executive Vice President, Focus on the Family; author, Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?
          ―Dorothy Kelley Patterson, Professor, Theology in Women’s Studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
          ―Dennis Rainey, President and CEO, FamilyLife; Host, FamilyLife Today; author, Stepping Up
          ―Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
          ―Robert W. Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

          Reply

    3. Imagine women thinking they are human.

       Reply

21. Good Morning

    In response to your first question about me saying hearing the Holy Spirit I am referring to the gentleman’s argument that the Holy Spirit needs to confirm the word that’s in the bible to him and other people that oppose the idea that women shouldn’t lead men in church or home. Secondly his argument was fleshy. It was not of the Spirit of god and he was defending a emotional feeling and not the truth. Like I said God has never called a woman to lead any nation or church in the bible. That was a very good point you made about Deborah not being appointed and if you really are reading this story with the guidance of the Holy Spirit she was not leading them. When I hear opposition to this subject it shows that people in the body of Christ have not matured and their understanding is still darkened about this subject. There is a perverted Spirit in the world that is killing the mentality of men and causing them to be passive and yielding to things that are not of god. I praise God for you taking a stand.

    Reply

    1. Hi Cody,
       Oh, okay. My apologies. I misunderstood your post.

       Thank you for your encouraging words!

       Reply

    2. Hi Cody!

       You are correct that GOD doesn’t want women to lead over men, but it’s inaccurate for you to say that has GOD never given a woman an appointed assignment.

       In John 1:28-31, GOD very clearly gives Mary an appointed assignment – have a child, and name Him Jesus. And in verse 38, Mary accepts this assignment.

       GOD certainly uses women. He created us in His image and He loves us. And He has purpose for us. But that purpose just does NOT include leading over our husbands or leading over the church.

       Reply

       1. Good point Tanya. While there are limitations on the ways women can serve, we don’t want to diminish the great ways they can serve and have been used by God!

          Reply

          1. I know God clearly loves men and hates women

22. Hi Scott!

    What an excellent job you’ve done on this post and in responding to all of the comments here. It is clear that you are a man of GOD leading well the children of GOD. Thank you!

    The point about scripture not directly saying that Shamgar was appointed by GOD was mentioned more than once by dissenters in the comments, and misused by them to support the false supposition that not all who were appointed by GOD had that directly revealed in scripture.

    I obviously disagree with that. I believe the scripture doesn’t say that Shamgar was appointed by GOD b/c Shamgar was NOT appointed by GOD.

    Not every man is called. Only men are called to lead, but not all men are called to lead. Simply being a man is not qualification alone. Some men (dare I say most men) are unfit to lead. Just b/c Shamgar was a man doesn’t mean he was appointed by GOD. I believe the only ones who were appointed by GOD are the ones where scripture specifically reveal that.

    So, since scripture does NOT say that Shamgar or Deborah were appointed by GOD, but does say that the others were, it is clear that Shamgar and Deborah were NOT appointed by GOD.

    I also find it no coincidence that the Song of Deborah in Judges 5:6 says that in the days of Shamgar people took winding paths and villages collapsed. And, in the very next verse (Judges 5:7), it says that b/c Deborah arose as a mother in Israel, peasantry prospered. Under both Shamgar and Deborah, the people suffered. It just really couldn’t be more clear that Shamgar and Deborah were NOT appointed by GOD to lead.

    Your thoughts?!

    Reply

    1. Hi Tanya,
       Thank you for the encouraging comment.

       You made a great point about Shamgar (and Deborah) being appointed by God. Not sure why that didn’t occur to me, but I think you’re right. I hope others read your thoughts. Typically I discourage people from speaking into silence, and now I can see that by suggesting Shamgar was appointed by God that I was doing what I’ve discouraged!

       I just read Judges 5:6-7. I hadn’t considered the application these verses had on Deborah and Shamgar’s judgeships. You’re right that they weren’t times of prosperity! Great insight, truly.

       I hope you’ll read some of my other posts and share your thoughts!

       Reply

23. I believe it’s important to hear the Holy Spirit on what God wants for men and women. It’s important not to let emotions overtake what is truth. I hear a lot of flesh when it comes to saying that women should not be leading men. God has never came to a woman and gave her a appointed assignment.God loves women but he doesn’t want them to lead men.

    Reply

    1. Hi Cody,
       I responded below your comments…

       I believe it’s important to hear the Holy Spirit on what God wants for men and women.

       What about hearing God’s Word says about men and women? Also, would God’s Holy Spirit lead us in a direction that conflicts with God’s Word?

       It’s important not to let emotions overtake what is truth.

       I completely agree! I think it’s typically emotionally charged, versus scripturally charged, arguments for women teaching and having authority over men.

       I hear a lot of flesh when it comes to saying that women should not be leading men.

       Tone is hard to convey in writing. Can you let me know what has sounded fleshly?

       God has never came to a woman and gave her a appointed assignment.

       Can you elaborate a little on what you mean here?

       God loves women but he doesn’t want them to lead men.

       Now it sounds like you’re saying women shouldn’t lead men? I think I’m having some trouble following your position.

       Reply

    2. Actually god hates women.

       Reply

24. Hello Scott~ You have interesting points but I disagree with your reasoning.

    First, you stated that she wasn’t appointed by God. Your reasoning is because it doesn’t say God called Deborah as a judge. Then who appointed her? Did the men of Israel thought it would be cool to have a woman judge? Did she self appoint her self as a judge and everyone simply agreed? HOW DID SHE BECOME A JUDGE OF ISRAEL? Are you going to ignore all the other evidences of her appointment because it didn’t say she was appointed by God? This is very ignorant. Bible says she was a prophetess and judged Israel. No one in Israel disputed her authority. She called for Barak to deliver God’s message. Her prophesies came true in grand fashion like other unlikely victories in the bible when it says God promises victory. ALL the evidences point to her being appointed by God! We can judge a tree by its fruits. She was one of the judges like other judges raised BY GOD.

    Second, you stated that Deborah had private ministry and not a public ministry. Judges 4:4 says Deborah was leading, governing, or judging (depending on how you translate it) Israel at that time. No matter how you see it, it was a position of authority over men and women since it is stated generally and doesn’t specify only women of Israel. Judges 4:5 says she would sit under the Palm of Deborah and the people of Israel would come to her for judgement. Under a tree is very open rather than private. In court where judgments are carried out, there are audiences or at least other people who are waiting for their cases to be settled. People will learn from observing how the judgments are carried out. She taught how the laws of God were to be applied and carried out for Israel people. That means her judgments had public implications and not just private as Supreme Court justices’ decisions have public implications. So, I don’t know why you would go out of your way to claim that her ministry was a private versus public. It is definitely easier to believe that she was a public leader with public ministry rather than a private ministry. If the author wanted to let us know that her judging was uniquely private opposed to public as the other judges or prophets were, don’t you think he would have let us know such an important distinction more clearly without all this ambiguity?

    Third and fourth points I agree with. The last point I agree with but with some reservation because of applications you mentioned.

    I do believe in male leadership as norm but not rule. Men have to step up and be courageous. If Deborah was an exception to the norm, who says there can’t be more exceptions? If God calls and gifts a woman to lead in any role, who are we to say she can’t lead? If God anointing is evident as with Deborah, who are we to go against God? God can call and anoint a woman to lead as shown by Deborah’s case. Therefore, I believe we shouldn’t make it a rule to disallow women to lead. I have seen women who can teach and lead as good as any man. Why can’t they teach and lead in a church? As for Paul’s teaching on females’ role in church, it was more about keeping the order. (Paul did tell slaves obey their masters also.) Our times have changed to a point that it would not cause disorder or chaos in a church if there are women teachers or even pastors. (Our men and women learn from female professors in universities already. I doubt that was the case during Paul’s time.) I know God made man and woman differently. This is why I say female leaders are not the norm but exceptions. Still, I don’t want to stand in the way of God if He wants a woman to lead. We can judge a tree by its fruits.

    Reply

    1. Hello Sam,
       You wrote quite a bit, so I quoted your comment, and responded point-by-point…

       Hello Scott~ You have interesting points but I disagree with your reasoning.
       First, you stated that she wasn’t appointed by God. Your reasoning is because it doesn’t say God called Deborah as a judge. Then who appointed her? Did the men of Israel thought it would be cool to have a woman judge? Did she self appoint her self as a judge and everyone simply agreed? HOW DID SHE BECOME A JUDGE OF ISRAEL?

       Since Scripture doesn’t tell us, I don’t know. I thought it was significant that it said the male judges had been appointed by God, but the same wasn’t said of Deborah. Then Damian Wilson asked about Shamgar who also doesn’t have a statement about God appointing him, and I acknowledged that I could be wrong about this point.

       I don’t think it says God appointed Shamgar, because there’s only one verse about him. If the account of his judgeship was longer, there would probably be an accompanying statement. Maybe I’m wrong though, and perhaps it’s insignificant that it doesn’t say God appointed Deborah.

       Are you going to ignore all the other evidences of her appointment because it didn’t say she was appointed by God? This is very ignorant. Bible says she was a prophetess and judged Israel.

       Yes, you’re right that Deborah was a prophetess, but that doesn’t conflict with male leadership.

       No one in Israel disputed her authority. She called for Barak to deliver God’s message. Her prophesies came true in grand fashion like other unlikely victories in the bible when it says God promises victory. ALL the evidences point to her being appointed by God! We can judge a tree by its fruits. She was one of the judges like other judges raised BY GOD.
       Second, you stated that Deborah had private ministry and not a public ministry. Judges 4:4 says Deborah was leading, governing, or judging (depending on how you translate it) Israel at that time. No matter how you see it, it was a position of authority over men and women since it is stated generally and doesn’t specify only women of Israel.

       It’s very important to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive. Just because something is recorded (described), doesn’t mean it’s commendable (prescriptive). What makes you think Deborah being a judge is prescriptive versus descriptive? The time of the Judges was the spiritually darkest time in Israel’s history. It’s largely a record of what NOT to do. Isaiah 3:12 says, “As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them.” Women ruling is a judgment against the nation. How can you then conclude a woman ruling (Deborah) is a good thing?

       Judges 4:5 says she would sit under the Palm of Deborah and the people of Israel would come to her for judgement. Under a tree is very open rather than private. In court where judgments are carried out, there are audiences or at least other people who are waiting for their cases to be settled. People will learn from observing how the judgments are carried out.

       I disagree. Saying she was under a tree and people visited her there emphasizes the private (versus public) nature of her position.

       She taught how the laws of God were to be applied and carried out for Israel people.

       Where does it say that?

       That means her judgments had public implications and not just private as Supreme Court justices’ decisions have public implications. So, I don’t know why you would go out of your way to claim that her ministry was a private versus public. It is definitely easier to believe that she was a public leader with public ministry rather than a private ministry.

       Even if her judgeship was public, and the pattern in the rest of Scripture is for men to lead and Scripture forbids women from having authority over men, we can conclude this was descriptive versus prescriptive.

       If the author wanted to let us know that her judging was uniquely private opposed to public as the other judges or prophets were, don’t you think he would have let us know such an important distinction more clearly without all this ambiguity?

       Deborah was a godly woman. She is the example in the account. The irony of your argument is that Deborah did her best to escape leading the men—she rebuked Barak and told him to take charge. It’s not ambiguous whatsoever. If, as you say, God wanted Deborah to lead, then why didn’t she?

       Third and fourth points I agree with. The last point I agree with but with some reservation because of applications you mentioned.
       I do believe in male leadership as norm but not rule. Men have to step up and be courageous. If Deborah was an exception to the norm, who says there can’t be more exceptions?

       Why would God make something normative (men leading), forbid something (men leading in 1 Timothy 2:12), pronounce it as a judgment (women leading in Isaiah 3:12), yet expect us to think there should be exceptions? Additionally, if there are supposed to be exceptions, why don’t we see any in Scripture? Deborah is the example cited, and an elevated view reveals a godly woman who tried to get a man to lead. You could cite Jezebel and Athaliah I suppose. They were queens who exercised authority. Do you think women should follow their examples?

       I have heard people say, “What about all the women in the New Testament who led?” Whenever I ask for examples, they throw out the names of women in the New Testament, but not who led. Yes I know there are wonderful women in the New Testament. Yes, I know God used them powerfully. But I don’t see any leading men.

       If God calls and gifts a woman to lead in any role, who are we to say she can’t lead?

       Right. If God did that. But He didn’t. He put restrictions on women’s roles, and gave them a greater focus on their husbands, children, and homes (Titus 2). Has God given women leadership ability? Yes. I think my wife has great teaching and leadership ability, as do other women in our church. Katie exercises these gifts within the boundaries given her: over other women and children.

       If God anointing is evident as with Deborah, who are we to go against God? God can call and anoint a woman to lead as shown by Deborah’s case.

       Lead who? You keep saying that, but the account is about a woman making every effort to see a man lead.

       Therefore, I believe we shouldn’t make it a rule to disallow women to lead. I have seen women who can teach and lead as good as any man.

       I agree with this, and I would add that I have seen men who can’t lead as well as some women. But this is not a question of ability. It’s a question of what God’s Word says.

       Why can’t they teach and lead in a church?

       They can, over other women and children.

       As for Paul’s teaching on females’ role in church, it was more about keeping the order.

       First Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” This could not be clearer. You must rip this verse kicking-and-screaming out-of-context to support what you’re saying.

       (Paul did tell slaves obey their masters also.) Our times have changed to a point that it would not cause disorder or chaos in a church if there are women teachers or even pastors.

       Okay, now you’ve given insight into your exegesis. Scripture’s teaching changes with time as the culture changes. I disagree with this completely.

       (Our men and women learn from female professors in universities already. I doubt that was the case during Paul’s time.) I know God made man and woman differently. This is why I say female leaders are not the norm but exceptions. Still, I don’t want to stand in the way of God if He wants a woman to lead. We can judge a tree by its fruits.

       If God wants a woman to lead men, as I said earlier, we must wonder why He wants something He forbids (1 Tim 2:12), condemns (Isa 3:12), and doesn’t support scripturally.

       Reply

       1. Hi
          You are very eager to say those things about defining a woman
          I am a woman and I actually left church because of your thought that is argued here
          I would rather live my christian life outside of the church because of arguments like yours
          I don’t want to call male beings like you a brother
          I can be anything and I want to lead people
          Dont ever say I am unfit to something because I have my genital
          I have a son and I have a spouse
          I take my spouse into my family
          partly because I feel safer with him
          Yes he is physically stronger than me
          Does it give him leadership?
          No
          It doesnt
          because physical power does not make a leader
          I am not submissive to my spouse at all but our marriage is working good
          Go in to God and ask God if your thought about woman is right
          everything will come clear
          like ‘yes or no’

          Reply

          1. Hello Gayoung,
             Nice to hear from you. Thank you for your comment, but it is hard for me to respond. Can you please let me know two things? First, what you disagreed with, and second, the biblical support for your argument?

25. How do you take the fact that the name Deborah means leader. Also, according to your argument, Joab should have been the leader of Israel instead of David, because he was raised to lead an army. Barack was just a general, Deborah was the commander in chief. Also, are you just ignorant of the female church leaders in the new testament, or that Deborah is mentioned in Hebrews 11 in the list of “heroes of the faith” (as it’s called) because she was a prophet. So are you saying we are to also set aside the new testament as descriptive instead of perspective?

    Reply

    1. Hi Alex,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. I’ll respond below your comments…

       How do you take the fact that the name Deborah means leader.

       Deborah’s name doesn’t mean, “leader.” It means “bee.” You can see the entry here.

       Also, according to your argument, Joab should have been the leader of Israel instead of David, because he was raised to lead an army. Barack was just a general, Deborah was the commander in chief.

       I’m not sure I understand what you’re communicating with the Joab and David analogy. If you elaborate I’ll do my best to respond.

       Also, are you just ignorant of the female church leaders in the new testament, or that

       The Twelve Apostles were men. Jesus could have chosen six men and six women, but He chose all men for these important leadership positions. The Seventy were men. They were sent out after the Twelve (Luke 10:1). Again though Jesus could have chosen thirty-five men and thirty-five women, but He chose all men. Church elders are men – consider the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–5, and Titus 1:6, 9 and they’re spoken of with masculine terms:

       “If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work . . . the husband of one wife . . . one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission. If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife . . . holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught.”

       In 1 Timothy 2:12–14, Paul said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

       Deborah is mentioned in Hebrews 11 in the list of “heroes of the faith” (as it’s called) because she was a prophet.

       No she’s not, but even if she was, that would be a commendation of her faith, not leadership over men.

       So are you saying we are to also set aside the new testament as descriptive instead of perspective?

       Parts of the New Testament are descriptive and parts are prescriptive. For example, Acts 2:44-45 says, “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.”

       This is descriptive versus prescriptive, but most of the epistles are prescriptive. I don’t think we should set aside any of the New Testament, but we should recognize what is descriptive and prescriptive.

       Reply

26. I have a quick question for you. What would you say about Shamgar in chapter 3:31? The scriptures never say he was raised or appointed by the Lord. However, he showed no passivity, like Barak, due to his killing of 600 Philistines with an ox goad. He was a true man as far as leadership and courage.

    One more thing. Chapter 2: 16-18 talks about the Lord raising judges for Israel. I believe it is talking about all of the judges, including Deborah. What do you think? Just to let you know, I agree with everything that you have written.

    Thank you,
    Dame

    Reply

    1. Hi Dame,
       Good question. You’re right that it doesn’t say Shamgar was raised or appointed by the Lord. I admit that I’m speculating, but I believe it’s because of how little is said of him. There’s only one verse. If the account of his judgeship was longer, there would probably be an accompanying statement. Without that addition though, like you said, he clearly distinguished himself from Barak through his courage and defense of the nation.

       Regarding Judges 2:16-18, I don’t think this means God raised up each judge. I think it’s simply a statement about what God did: He raised up judges for the nation, and He did; however, it doesn’t say, “Every judge was raised up by God.”

       Good questions, and I’m sorry for the delay in responding! Please let me know if there’s anything else.

       Reply

27. This was very powerful man of god and very needed in this present age. I see a lot of opposition to male leadership and even in some of the responses to what you were teaching. We live in a already jezebel and ahab society that wants to abolish manhood and praise perversion. This has encouraged me even the more to stand as a man of god in this society. God bless you and may the love of Jesus Christ empower you amen.

    Reply

    1. Hello Cody,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. I’m glad my post encouraged you. The relationship between Ahab and Jezebel is a perfect example of a swapping of the roles that caused problems for them and others. Think of the situation with Naboth: Jezebel had him murdered, while Ahab passively sat by. His wife led, and he submitted to her plan. Adam and Eve, and Abraham and Sarah are other good examples. In Gen 3:17, God rebuked Adam…

       “Because YOU HAVE LISTENED TO THE VOICE OF YOUR WIFE
       and have eaten of the tree
       of which I commanded you,
       ‘You shall not eat of it,’”

       We know the fall took place when Adam and Eve sinned, but God points out WHY the fall took place: because Adam obeyed his wife. He was passive. Go forward a few chapters and you reach Abraham and Sarah…

       Genesis 16:2 Sarai said to Abram, “The Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And ABRAM LISTENED TO THE VOICE OF SARAI.

       It’s the same words that God said to Adam. We know this caused problems too.

       Reply

28. Very good. Thanks for putting this together

    Reply

    1. Trey,
       You’re welcome. Thanks for reading!

       Reply

29. The most interesting parallel in the Deborah account is how similar it is to today’s society… men who should be leading who are not, and women who are left standing in the gap searching for a leader. In both God is what is missing – and Christians know that. It proves that while often times it seems so much has changed since the Bible was written, so much is still the same.

    Reply

    1. Hi Marissa,
       Thanks for reading and commenting.

       Yes, there’s definitely application for today. While submission receives an amount of criticism from unbelievers and even some professing Christians, as a pastor the most common criticism I hear is, “My husband won’t lead.” This leaves women having to be like Deborah and carry some of the load that’s meant for a man. I appreciate that you recognized the application Scripture has today.

       Reply

       1. Males are not smarter or wiser than females, we have brains and can think and lead ourselves. You are are a female hating as$hole.

          Reply

          1. Hello Susan,
             You have lots of comments that are basically saying the same thing, so I’m just going to respond once.

             No, women are not inferior to men whatsoever. Will you please look at this post I wrote titled, “Six Examples of What a Wife’s Biblical Submission Is NOT (Ephesians 5:22-24).” In particular, please look at number six discussing women not being inferior.

             Also, because Christianity is criticized for commanding wives to submit to their husbands, it’s important to keep in mind nothing has ever done more for the treatment of woman than Christianity. In some parts of the world – think of the Middle East – women are treated as little more than objects – and it’s only when the Gospel is introduced that women are elevated to a level of treatment they wouldn’t otherwise know. It’s the Gospel that takes abusive, cruel men and brings them to repentance regarding their behavior and causes them to honor women and give them the honor they should receive.

30. There is something about this story that I love. This is a hot topic with a lot of people, but we can learn a lot when we really look at what the Bible says about it. I am probably in the minority being a woman who thinks that men should lead.

    Reply

    1. Hi Tara,
       Thanks for reading and commenting.

       A minority with God is better than the largest majority without Him, right? :).

       Reply

31. Hey Scott, thanks for really digging into this text and pulling out some very practical insights. You do a nice job of making strong, clear applications without going beyond what the passage warrants.

    From everything I see, we’re at a moment where many (most?) men struggle with leadership. It’s beyond the scope and point of your post, but I wonder why you think this is true (if you do), and, how you would recommend men addressing it. In my experience, many men ‘know’ they should lead, but find it very hard to make progress even after making this discovery.

    Thanks again for bringing up this important topic!

    Reply

    1. Hi Bryan,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. I especially appreciate the feedback on the points, that they don’t go beyond what Scripture teaches.

       In regards to your question, “Why do men struggle with leadership?” I hate to say it, but I have to put the responsibility on some churches. We can’t blame the world and/or the culture, because we don’t expect the world/culture to agree with God’s Word. If you look at the criticisms in the comments on this post you see they are from people claiming to be Christians; mostly women by the way too. They’re all for female pastors and they’re terribly opposed to wives submitting to their husbands.

       More than likely they’re also part of egalitarian churches that encourage women to lead in the home and the church, and indirectly encourage passive men. The remedy is for churches to clearly teach God’s Word and encourage the men, especially the husbands and fathers, to be the pastors/shepherds of their families. One other subtler issue is the view that churches are responsible with raising their children. When the view is, “I don’t have to pray with my children or read the Bible with them, because I take them to church and/or youth group” there will be spiritually lazy/passive men. It goes back to Genesis 3 when God told Adam, “Because you heeded the voice of your wife.” God was looking to the weakness of men to submit to their wives, and indirectly the weakness of women to take control of their husbands (“Your desire will be for your husband”; a desire to control).

       Reply

32. While I am a huge proponent of male leadership in the church, I do think that we need to be careful in saying that Deborah was not appointed by God. He clearly used her and spoke through her to lead the people of Israel.

    Reply

    1. Scott,
       To demand to see proof that Deborah was God appointed but dismiss that there were male Judges without that distinction is unfair. You would also have to see every Judge appointed by God. Deborah is the foundation for the female leaders in the early church, if you would like I’ll give you a list of people directly spoken of in the letters. I’m also just curious of your stance on the “heroes of the faith” list in Hebrews 11. Because Deborah would be included in “the prophets” she also was a prophetess, the only person in the bible to have the distinction of both prophet and judge.

       Reply

       1. Hi Alex,
          Again, I’ll respond below your comments…

          Scott, to demand to see proof that Deborah was God appointed but dismiss that there were male Judges without that distinction is unfair. You would also have to see every Judge appointed by God.

          Okay, that’s fine. You can see a question from someone else about Shamgar, as well as my response. The point is it doesn’t say he was appointed by God.

          Deborah is the foundation for the female leaders in the early church,

          You can see my previous comment about male leadership in the New Testament.

          Just to be clear, I know there are women with great leadership and teaching ability. My wife is in this category as are some other women in the church I pastor. They exercise their gifts over other women and children; therefore, there are outlets for them.

          if you would like I’ll give you a list of people directly spoken of in the letters.

          Do you mean you’ll give me a list of women mentioned in the New Testament? If so, you don’t need to do that. I’m away of plenty of wonderful, godly women in the New Testament. We have a daughter named Chloe ?. But while the mention of women in the New Testament often applauds their contributions to the Lord’s work, they aren’t in positions of teaching or authority over men.

          I’m also just curious of your stance on the “heroes of the faith” list in Hebrews 11.

          I commented on this in my previous comment. You said Deborah is in Hebrews 11, but she’s not.

          Because Deborah would be included in “the prophets” she also was a prophetess,

          Yes, you’re right that Deborah was a prophetess.

          the only person in the bible to have the distinction of both prophet and judge.

          This is not true. Samuel was a prophet and judge and served as the transition between the two offices.

          Reply

    2. Hi Bailey,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. I definitely would not deny that God used her!

       When other judges are introduced there’s a clear indication of God’s appointing. What verse gives the same indication for Deborah?

       Reply

    3. Scott – Not all the judges had a clear statement indicating God’s appointment (There is Elon and Abdon in chapter 12 which had nothing more said about them). However, Judges 2:16 does show that “the LORD raised up judges”. So regardless of the individual attention given, the earlier text does indicate that each judge was established by God. I believe it is unwise to downplay the establishment of Deborah as a judge over Israel. The text clearly shows that it was an ordination from God. The fact that “Israel saw God defeat Jabin” is testimony to God’s working through Deborah. To say that Deborah was a judge because there were no men to lead is a stretch. He chose Gideon who was a wreck of a man with all his doubts. With Gideon, He used the weakest of the weak to rescue His people. So it is with Deborah. How many times has God shown His power and strength through those that the world would see as “weak”. In that culture, to have a woman leading was just another sign that God can use ANYONE he calls to accomplish His purposes. To say that a man and not Deborah should have been leading is a slap in the face to God’s calling someone into leadership.

       Reply

       1. Hi Michael,
          Thanks for reading and commenting.

          I think it depends what you mean by “downplaying the establishment of Deborah as a judge.” I definitely wasn’t trying to do that. My attempt was to speak positively of Deborah. For example, I concluded by saying:

          If there is an example to be followed here, it is Deborah. She encouraged Barak to lead, told him what God desired of him, and rebuked him when he would not take charge…Her story should motivate women to do what she did.

          You said, “The text clearly shows that it was an ordination from God.” Where does it clearly show that? I don’t want to repeat the info I have in my post, but the commentary on Judges 4:4 and the argument from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is very strong.

          You said “God worked through Deborah.” I completely agree with you! But just because God uses someone, or uses a situation, doesn’t suddenly make it prescriptive (versus descriptive) or approve the decisions and actions of the individuals involved.

          I also agree with everything you said about God using the weak. Judges in general seems to be a case-study supporting your point…and I would say my life has been that as well :).

          You said, “In that culture, to have a woman leading was just another sign that God can use ANYONE he calls to accomplish His purposes.” It’s definitely true that God can use anyone He calls to accomplish His purposes. Whether it’s a man, woman, donkey (Balaam), fish (Jonah), etc. But just because God uses people doesn’t legitimize the situation or their actions. For example, keeping with the book of Judges, God used Samson’s disobedience with Philistine women to punish the Philistines. Judges 14:3-4 says:

          3 Then his father and mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?”
          And Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she pleases me well.”
          4 But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD—that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

          Yes, God used Samson’s disobedience for good, but we don’t look at this and think we should go out and marry people when we’re unequally yoked. Thank you for the discussion!

          Reply

33. Deborah lead Israel as a judge because there was not a man who was willing to lead.

    Reply

    1. Hi Judith,
       Yes, you’re right. It was an unfortunate situation that reflected the spiritual climate of the time.

       Reply

34. Hi! Free thinking, strong women here… in my experience, reading the Bible is difficult when you refuse to accept what it says, especially when it goes against what is comfortable. Read the word. The pastor did. If it’s good enough for God then it should be good enough for us.

    Reply

    1. Maureen,
       Thanks for reading and commenting. Well said.

       Reply

35. I just want you to know you are persecuting, abusing, and traumatizing Christian women by restricting their freedom of conscience and conviction in the exercise of their faith. You have usurped the role of God as an external controller who strives to restrict religious freedom.

    You are no different from a Taliban agent persecuting Christian women for their faith.

    Reply

    1. Hello Laura,
       Nice to hear from you. Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing your honest thoughts.

       Can you let me know: do you believe the Bible commands wives to submit to their husbands?

       Reply

    2. Laura – Eve also felt like she was being restricted. She decided to become a “strong and independent woman”, make her own decisions and think for herself, (as suggested by Satan). And look what happened to her!

       Reply

36. Hi Scott,
    A. Regarding women prophets, you quoted my words: “You say that women prophets always prophesied under the “headship” of a husband or father or, in the case of the widow Anna, the temple’s own male leadership. But the Bible text does not say this.” Your response of 16 Aug 2019 was: “Yes, it does. I gave you examples.”
    I don’t understand your response. None of your examples says that women prophets prophesied under the “headship” of a husband, a father, or the Temple’s leadership. I can see that this is how you are imagining it, but it is not what the Bible text says.
    B. In relation to 1 Tim 3:1-5, are you not curious to understand why reputable complementarian scholars concede that 1 Tim 3:1-5 cannot legitimately be used in support of the complementarian position on women’s ministry?
    I am not doing “gymnastics”, just asking for close attention to the Bible’s actual words.
    C. I did not suggest that 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16 (which indicate that women may teach in the church) contradict 1 Tim 2:12. However, I understand your position to be that 1 Tim 2:12 “plainly” teaches that women must not deliver authoritative Christian teaching to men. This interpretation raises some major concerns about faithfulness to the text. Among them are that this interpretation reads the verse without reference to its full context, that it ascribes to the word for ‘teach’ a restricted meaning which cannot be proved from Paul’s usage or other New Testament usage of the word, and that it depends upon mistranslating v 12.
    Here are some questions to consider:
    1. In 1 Timothy 1, does Paul say that he is writing about whether women are permitted to deliver sound teaching or does he say that he is writing about dealing with people who are promoting false teaching?
    (I would say the latter.)
    2. Why does Paul connect what he says in 1 Timothy 1 to what he says in 1 Timothy 2 with ‘therefore’ (Greek ‘oun’) in 2:1 and again in 2:8. Is it because chapter 2 is unconnected with his topic in chapter 1, or is it because in chapter 2, as in chapter 1, he is writing about dealing with false teachers?
    (I would say the latter.)
    3. Paul starts 2:12 with ‘I do not permit’/’I am not permitting’. It seems a counter-intuitive choice of expression if his intention is to lay down a general rule applicable to all churches in all times and places. Is this expression used anywhere else in the Bible for laying down an enduring general rule?
    (I would answer: no, it is not.)
    4. Where does Scripture explicitly recognize a special activity of authoritative teaching that is different from other Christian teaching activities and that is allocated to a specific group of men?
    (I would answer: nowhere.)
    5. If in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul is writing about who should have authority in the church, why does he not use his ordinary word for authority? Why does he use the unusual Greek word ‘authentein’, which is not used anywhere else in the Bible?
    (I would say: because he is not writing about who should have authority but about dealing with false teaching.)
    6. Can you identify any clear example in Greek literature before the time of Paul, or contemporary with Paul, or in the first, second or third century AD, where ‘authentein’ means ‘have authority’?
    (I would answer: there is none. The relevant meaning current in Paul’s time was ‘dominate’/‘overpower’/’gain mastery over’, as in Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos 3.13.10.)
    7. 1 Tim 2:13 starts with ‘for’ (Greek, ‘gar’). So, we can understand that vv 13-14 are support for vv 11-12. As a matter of language, the support could be either (1) an appeal to a general creation principle or (2) an apt illustration taken from the creation story. How can you prove that it is (1) rather than (2)?
    (My answer would be that you can’t, and that taking it as an appeal to a creation principle creates difficulties which complementarian commentators have not resolved.)
    8. Why do many commentators (both complementarian and egalitarian) struggle to understand what Paul means in 1 Tim 2:15?
    (I would say: because they do not attend fully to the context, especially Paul’s train of reasoning which commences in 1:3 and continues smoothly from there to 2:15.)
    9. In 1 Tim 2:15, where Paul writes ‘she will be saved through the childbearing if they remain in faith and love and holiness with self-control’, why does he jump from ‘she’ to ‘they’?
    (I would suggest that ‘she’ in verse 15 refers to ‘the woman’ of verse 14. This woman is Eve, who taught Adam once falsely, and who in Paul’s illustration stands for the ‘woman’ of verses 11–12. If we track back from verse 15, looking for a plural referent for ‘they’, we find it in the wealthy ‘women’ of verses 9–10, who are not to dress expensively and indecently but who instead are to adorn themselves with good works. By jumping from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, Paul signals that he is equating ‘she’ and ‘they’. In other words, he is equating ‘woman’ in verses 11–12 (singular) with ‘women’ in verses 9–10 (plural). This confirms that Paul’s instruction in verses 11–12 concerning ‘a woman’ is not a move to a new topic but is aimed at the ‘women’ of verses 9–10. These are particular wealthy women in the Ephesian church.)
    From elsewhere in the letter, we can infer that these women were promoting false teaching. I have written about this in my book, the name of which you have requested me not to mention, as you are entitled to do.

    Reply

37. Hi Scott.
    “The Twelve Apostles were men.” But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders. The twelve apostles were also Jewish, but we do not conclude that all leaders must be Jewish.
    “The Seventy were men.” How do you know? Luke doesn’t say so. What he does tell us is that Jesus’s travelling band of disciples included women (Lk 8:1-3).
    “Church elders are men.” You cite 1 Tim 3:1-5, with parallel in Titus. You emphasize the phrase “If a man desires the position …”. But in the previous sentence Paul has been writing about women, and his choice of Greek word here, which your translation renders as ‘man’, is ‘tis’, which is a gender-neutral word, meaning ‘anyone’ or ‘a certain person’. This suggests eldership is open to anyone, if they have the right qualities. You go on to emphasize ‘he’, ‘his’, ‘man’. But in the Greek text [NA27/UBS4] Paul does not use any masculine pronoun or possessive in these two passages. You emphasize also ‘husband of one wife’ (Gk mias gunaikos andra – literally, ‘one-woman man’). But, because of the way the Greek language works, this could either be meant specifically in a masculine sense (a man who is chaste and not polygamous) or generically. Where a Greek writer wishes to refer to both men and women, a standard way of doing so is to use an appropriate noun for males. For example, ‘brothers’ in Paul’s letters most often refers to both men and women. In Acts 17:34 ‘men’ (andres) includes Damaris, a woman. So, Paul’s wording of the qualifications for elders does not establish that they must be males. Even prominent scholars who support male-only leadership, such as Schreiner and Moo, admit this. Similarly, the Danvers Statement does not place explicit reliance on 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1 for its ban on women elders. They argue from other texts.
    You also refer to 1 Tim 2:12-14. To understand Paul’s reasoning here, it is necessary to follow his continuous train of thought from the beginning of his letter, which there is not space for here.

    Reply

    1. Hi Andrew,
       I responded below your thoughts…

       Hi Scott.
       “The Twelve Apostles were men.” But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders. The twelve apostles were also Jewish, but we do not conclude that all leaders must be Jewish.

       I repeated this a few times in my other response: the post is about an established pattern of male leadership, hence the mention of the apostles (and others) being men.

       “The Seventy were men.” How do you know? Luke doesn’t say so. What he does tell us is that Jesus’s travelling band of disciples included women (Lk 8:1-3).

       You’re right that it doesn’t say they were all men.

       “Church elders are men.” You cite 1 Tim 3:1-5, with parallel in Titus. You emphasize the phrase “If a man desires the position …”. But in the previous sentence Paul has been writing about women, and his choice of Greek word here, which your translation renders as ‘man’, is ‘tis’, which is a gender-neutral word, meaning ‘anyone’ or ‘a certain person’. This suggests eldership is open to anyone, if they have the right qualities. You go on to emphasize ‘he’, ‘his’, ‘man’. But in the Greek text [NA27/UBS4] Paul does not use any masculine pronoun or possessive in these two passages. You emphasize also ‘husband of one wife’ (Gk mias gunaikos andra – literally, ‘one-woman man’). But, because of the way the Greek language works, this could either be meant specifically in a masculine sense (a man who is chaste and not polygamous) or generically. Where a Greek writer wishes to refer to both men and women, a standard way of doing so is to use an appropriate noun for males. For example, ‘brothers’ in Paul’s letters most often refers to both men and women. In Acts 17:34 ‘men’ (andres) includes Damaris, a woman. So, Paul’s wording of the qualifications for elders does not establish that they must be males. Even prominent scholars who support male-only leadership, such as Schreiner and Moo, admit this. Similarly, the Danvers Statement does not place explicit reliance on 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1 for its ban on women elders. They argue from other texts.

       You’re really doing gymnastics with the text to make this point. It’s clear Paul has me in view in the qualifications in Timothy and Titus.

       You also refer to 1 Tim 2:12-14. To understand Paul’s reasoning here, it is necessary to follow his continuous train of thought from the beginning of his letter, which there is not space for here.

       So a verse that forbids women from teaching and having authority over men, you happen not to have space to discuss? That’s convenient.

       The reason there’s not space is you need the room for a long explanation basically saying, “The text doesn’t mean what it says,” even though it plainly says it.

       Reply

38. Hi Scott.
    “There were patriarchs instead of matriarchs.” “The tribes of Israel were named after men.” But these facts do not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders.
    “The only legitimate mediators between God and people were men (ie, priests instead of priestesses).” This works against your view. In the NT the priesthood passes to all believers, who are both men and women (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:9-10). So, if you are determined to draw conclusions from OT priesthood for NT leadership and teaching, it would follow that women may now be leaders and teachers. You ask “Where is there one example in the entire Bible of a woman publicly teaching an assembled group of God’s people?” If we look in the NT for a specific example of a male church elder, who is not an apostle, teaching the assembly, there isn’t one. So, you can’t draw a conclusion from the absence of a specific example of a female church elder teaching the assembly. But we can see that women taught in the church assembly from 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16 (see the context in each case – Paul is writing to both men and women).
    “God appointed kings instead of queens.” When Israel was a monarchy, it mostly had kings. But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders. You note yourself that Esther was a godly queen.
    “God called men to be the focal points of his covenants with mankind (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus).” But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders.
    You go on to say that women could be prophets “for the simple reason that it was not a position of leadership”. But that view is not supported by the Bible text. Take Samuel as an example; as a prophet he is the leader (1 Sam 3, 7). Likewise Deborah (Judg 4:4). Or take Huldah (2 Kgs 22): In the time of King Josiah a scroll of the law is found. The king is alarmed at the contents. To inquire what should be done he sends a delegation of important officials, including the high priest, not to Jeremiah or to Zephaniah but to Huldah. She instructs them to tell the king that the judgment foretold in the scroll will happen, but not in his lifetime, because he has repented. This triggers a revival in Israel (23:1–25). You rightly say that Huldah’s prophecy is delivered privately to the delegation. But this does not alter the fact that as God’s spokesman she gives authoritative instructions to both the high priest and the king, and so guides the nation. This is leadership.
    You say that women prophets always prophesied under the “headship” of a husband or father or, in the case of the widow Anna, the temple’s own male leadership. But the Bible text does not say this.

    Reply

    1. Hi Andrew,
       Thanks for reading and responding. I copied your comment and shared my thoughts below…

       Hi Scott.
       “There were patriarchs instead of matriarchs.” “The tribes of Israel were named after men.” But these facts do not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders.

       Okay, this fact alone doesn’t disqualify women, but the post is about the pattern of male leadership throughout Scripture. This is evidence to support the established pattern.

       “The only legitimate mediators between God and people were men (ie, priests instead of priestesses).” This works against your view. In the NT the priesthood passes to all believers, who are both men and women (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:9-10). So, if you are determined to draw conclusions from OT priesthood for NT leadership and teaching, it would follow that women may now be leaders and teachers.

       There’s the priesthood of all believers in that all believers have access to God, but the leadership of the people of faith continues to be male, whether Old or New Testament.

       You ask “Where is there one example in the entire Bible of a woman publicly teaching an assembled group of God’s people?” If we look in the NT for a specific example of a male church elder, who is not an apostle, teaching the assembly, there isn’t one. So, you can’t draw a conclusion from the absence of a specific example of a female church elder teaching the assembly. But we can see that women taught in the church assembly from 1 Cor 14:26 and Col 3:16 (see the context in each case – Paul is writing to both men and women).

       There are two possibilities with these verses. One possibility is you’re right and Paul is contradicting what he taught in 1 Tim 2:12, which is to say Scripture is contradicting itself. The other possibility is these verses harmonize with Paul’s statement and doesn’t include women teaching men. Women can have the gift of teaching, and they can teach women and other children. That’s a fitting interpretation of these verses.

       “God appointed kings instead of queens.” When Israel was a monarchy, it mostly had kings. But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders. You note yourself that Esther was a godly queen.

       Mostly had kings? The nation was only led by a queen once: Athaliah. You don’t really think she supports female leadership, do you?

       Like I said earlier, the mention of kings is to further establish the pattern.

       “God called men to be the focal points of his covenants with mankind (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus).” But this does not tell us whether, according to the Bible, it is legitimate for women to be leaders.

       See above about establishing pattern…which is the point of the post.

       You go on to say that women could be prophets “for the simple reason that it was not a position of leadership”. But that view is not supported by the Bible text. Take Samuel as an example; as a prophet he is the leader (1 Sam 3, 7). Likewise Deborah (Judg 4:4). Or take Huldah (2 Kgs 22): In the time of King Josiah a scroll of the law is found. The king is alarmed at the contents. To inquire what should be done he sends a delegation of important officials, including the high priest, not to Jeremiah or to Zephaniah but to Huldah. She instructs them to tell the king that the judgment foretold in the scroll will happen, but not in his lifetime, because he has repented. This triggers a revival in Israel (23:1–25). You rightly say that Huldah’s prophecy is delivered privately to the delegation. But this does not alter the fact that as God’s spokesman she gives authoritative instructions to both the high priest and the king, and so guides the nation. This is leadership.

       We clearly see this differently. To say more would be to repeat what I wrote in the post.

       You say that women prophets always prophesied under the “headship” of a husband or father or, in the case of the widow Anna, the temple’s own male leadership. But the Bible text does not say this.

       Yes, it does. I gave you examples.

       Reply

39. The largest difficulty I see in this writing here is your proclamation that Esther submitted to King Xerxes when, in fact, Esther was directly defiant of his leadership in defense of her people. Above all (and I do think that we are all called-men and women alike) we are called to serve God: before any type of leadership-whether male or female. Additionally, I encourage you to consider a different perspective that allows the space for both women and men to showcase their giftedness rather than their roles. Take a look:

    http://www.soulation.org/articles/unmuted.html

    The posted link also gives a thorough exploration on the story of female prophets-a fantastic read if I do say so myself.

    Reply

    1. Hi Katie,
       Thank you for reading and commenting.

       In what way(s) did Esther defy the king? She sought his presence and when it was granted she made the request that the Jews be spared and Haman be killed.

       I have a perspective that allows for women to showcase their giftedness. My wife (and our associate pastor’s wife as well as other women in the church) is a gifted teacher and strong leader. She (and the other women) use their gifts to teach/lead women and children.

       Regarding female prophets, or prophetesses, I made that concession in the post.

       Reply

    2. I see your point. In the story, Esther did indeed “seek his presence” and “made the request that the Jews be spared and Haman be killed”, but this, in and of itself, was risky. And, going against what a queen of her statue typically would do. She, according to the story’s context, literally risked her life by even requesting an audience with the king and making her request.

       Reply

       1. Hi Katie,
          Yes, that’s true. If there hadn’t been any risk, she wouldn’t have needed Mordecai’s encouragement in Esther 4:13-14:

          Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

          Reply

40. Does the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 really only refer to instructions on worship as the section heading suggests in NIV? Do you see any implication in verse 15 that this is for a way of life? What does worship have to do with being saved through child bearing? Saved from what through child bearing? I know I am saved from my sins because Jesus paid the price for them. The passage reads;

    1 Timothy 2:11-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

    11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

    Reply

    1. Hello,
       I just checked four other Bibles (NKJV, NASB, and ESV) and NIV is the only one with a title associating the verses with worship. Plus, the title is at the beginning of the chapter (as opposed to further down near the verses in question), and as you get further from the location of a heading it’s easier to move away from the topic.

       With that said, it’s clear Paul is discussing more than just worship, because he moves beyond teaching to authority too. In other words, he’s got a principle in mind (women not being in leadership over men), versus simply a discussion of teaching in the church. We can also tell this by looking at the rest of Scripture. As I stated in the post, it’s really a pattern from Genesis to Revelation for men to lead.

       Regarding your question about childbirth, this has caused plenty of confusion. The simplest way to say it is Paul calls on creation itself (that Adam was created first) to support his point (that women shouldn’t be in authority over men). After identifying what women shouldn’t do, he then discusses what they should do, or you could say what can fill the vacuum. You can make two simple applications from his words.

       First, it means raising children is the primary sphere of ministry in which a women serves the Lord and works out her salvation (as opposed to teaching/leading in the church). While we’re not saved by works, works are evidence of being saved, and childbearing is where the works – or fruit – of a woman’s salvation will be most commonly exercised. For women, the fruit that’s evidence of salvation is commonly produced while raising children.

       Second, it means women will be made holy or sanctified through having children. Children cause a woman to be sanctified over time, and if you have children, I’m sure you’d agree ?. Are there many many more sanctifying influences on you than your children? Are there many things that teach you to be patient, gentle, longsuffering, sacrificial – and thankful – more than having children? One of the things my wife, Katie, has said is:

       “Are any other things in your life that cause you to cling to the Lord and trust Him more than having children? Is there anything in life that’s scarier and causes you to depend on the Lord more than having children?”

       And again – whether you’re a father or a mother – all of this is very good for us. One of the reasons children are a gift, reward and blessing relates to how God uses them in our lives.

       Reply

41. There are two basic assumptions when it comes to Scripture in regard to the roles of men and women. A) That the leadership of men is the norm that God intends, and that female leadership when it is present is an exception to the norm or B) that women sharing authority, leading men as much as men lead women is actually the norm that God intends. If B) is true, then the Scriptures are poorly designed to convey that norm, and you have to proof-text to arrive at it. Those trying to convey norm B) must sow doubt into the intentions of the writers, and/or the translators, and Scripture must be broken into pieces and then re-assembled to fit that presupposition.

    I believe that God is sovereign over the times and placed that his Word was revealed in Scripture, so I reject the argument that the Scriptures were from a more fundamentally ignorant time in regard to men and women. I also believe that the translation of the Bible is an extension the translation of the Gospel at Pentecost, as human languages were God-ordained to be capable of containing his Word. I also believe that God was sovereign over the redacting of Scripture into our 66 books of the Bible and sovereign over their translations.

    I further believe that you can use other translated Scripture to know the meaning of a part of translated Scripture. While there is indeed a value for the study of the original language, I am unimpressed with arguments that rely on hermeutical arcanism to make their point, requiring special knowledge of specific words in the original language.

    So why would Scripture have norm A)? As we are made in God’s image as human beings, we are also made uniquely in God’s image male and female. The different ways we are made in God’s image male and female are designed to work together so that our sexual energy working together more completely reflects the God whose image we are made in. This is not that God is sexual, in a similar manner that a person whose image is reflected in a clay statue is not himself made out of clay.

    Why would male leadership matter for this? Giving space for men to lead gives space for God-ordained male energy of men to bless women, and women allowing themselves to submit to men leading allows the God-ordained female energy of women to bless men, and so the whole is blessed. This part of the “gender holiness” in Scripture that is intended to go along with sexual holiness.

    Feminism, which is secular humanism applied to gender, demands co-leadership as a right of human justice and declares it an injustice when it is not happening. This idea of gender justice that has been embraced by many Christian feminists makes sense if we are totally depraved in our sins as a strategy to protect men and women from each other’s rapaciousness. Scripture acknowledges the reality of sin but also provides a path to be redeemed out of it. When Abigail rejected the directives of her rapacious husband Nabal, the end result was her transferring husbandship from Nabal to David. Abigail’s personal relationship with God and submission to the Holy Spirit is affirmed in all of her actions, as the one who rebelled against Nabal and the one who submitted to David.

    While this would take a larger essay to elaborate on, I deny that we are made in God’s image differently by denying the different leadership space ordained by God to express those differences, which is a move toward Gnosticism that sees our spiritual selves as redeemed and our bodies as being part of a purely material reality.

    Reply

    1. Hi Gregory,
       Thanks for reading and commenting so thoroughly. I hope anyone who reads the post takes the time to read your comment too. I read it twice and appreciated a number of the points you made.

       Reply

    2. I guess I better not comment because all my comments get deleted.

       Reply

42. Scott LaPierre,you asked about Titus 2:5. The word “obedient “is actually not an accurate translation. It is closer to the submit word which I have already e plainer. The word “head” in Ephesians is typically misinterpreted. The Greek word for “head” is kephale which has several meanings. For years people have just gone to the patriarchal meaning but this is not accurate. Another word was used during this time to denote authority over and that was “archon”. That word is not used in any of the marriage passages. The most probable meaning is source or origin and this follows the issues going on in the church during this time. Some teachings had started circulating in the church that included teaching from the worship of Artemis and Diana. These teachings included false teachings about creation and was very abusive and limiting towards men. Most if not all the scholars I mentioned believe this is the most probable meaning of this passage. It makes sense as to why he would mention Adam being created first. I can recommend reading some of Jay Lee Grady, Margaret Mowczko and Bob Edwards.

    Reply

    1. Laurie,
       Scripture is overwhelmingly clear. Every time wives are mentioned in the New Testament, there’s a corresponding command for them to submit to their husbands:
       • Ephesians 5:22—Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.
       • Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church submits to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
       • Colossians 3:18—Wives, submit to your husbands, as is right and fitting and your proper duty in the Lord.
       • 1 Peter 3:1a—In like manner, you married women, be submissive to your own husbands.

       Scripture clearly identifies husbands as the head of their wives:
       • Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church
       • 1 Corinthians 11:3—The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man..

       Wives are commanded to obey their husbands: Titus 2:5a—Older women should teach younger women to obey their husbands.

       What you’ve done each time is say, “Submit doesn’t mean submit,” “Head doesn’t mean head,” “Obey doesn’t mean obey.” This is what your position demands though. You have to look at Scripture and say that it doesn’t say what it says.

       I mentioned this before, and I’ll mention it again. If your logic is followed, then:
       • The church doesn’t have to submit to Christ
       • Christ has to submit to the church
       • Christ isn’t the head of the church
       • God the Father isn’t the head of God the Son
       When you deny the word “submit” and “head” in the above verses teaching these truths, you also deny these truths, because these truths are taught in these verses with these words.

       Reply

    2. And I will say it again, the Bible was not written in English. The people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. The translators, the annotators, the commentators…not all the time. They have biases, prejudices because they are human. I am not making up reasons to deny something the BIble says. I am digging deeper to find out the original intent of the author. And God’s ways work. When husbands and wives honor each other and submit to each other marriage works. There are complementarian (patriarchal) marriages that work because the man is domineering and the wife is naturally a passive person, but typically there is pent up frustration from the one being dominated. Then the church steps in and makes the woman feel convicted for feeling frustrated and so the cycle continues.
       I mentioned before God’s ways work, Barna research have done many studies on Christian marriages. They typically don’t fare any better than non-Christian marriages. They did a poll of 100 Christian couples (Read their Bibles, attend church every Sunday, tithe), and 100 atheist couples. When asked how fulfilled and happy the Christian couples were 65% were unhappy and unfulfilled in their marriages. When they asked what the primary reason was for the problems they answered the headship/submission doctrine. 17% of the atheist couples were unhappy or unfulfilled in their marriages. You can look it up if you don’t believe me. If you have a problem with that study there are many others from Barna you can read.
       God’s ways work! When men hold on to doctrines of tradition that lift themselves up (pride) by beating down women I don’t believe God wants any part of that. When men humble themselves and realize they are not God for women but they serve the same God and that the Holy Spirit leads both men and women I believe God is honored in that and He can work there.

       Interestingly enough you seem to be fixated on this submission thing. You haven’t mentioned one time what the Bible says regarding husbands.

       I believe you said you were a pastor. So when you give a sermon do you never look for background information? Do you never look for the reason something was said? No historical context? No cultural context? No taking a verse in context of the whole chapter or book? No looking up Greek words and finding out their definitions? Because that is what your position demands and that is what you are doing with this issue.

       Reply

       1. Hi Laurie,
          Yes, the Bible was not written in English, but there are reasons the translators chose the English words they chose, and it’s because those are the English words that best translate the original Greek and Hebrew. While there might be some differences, there’s a reason all the versions of Scripture say “submit” or “be subject.” NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, HCSB, etc.

          Reply

    3. You know you are more than welcome to look up these words yourself since you don’t believe me. Then you can see the word for obey is actually a different word than the word they translated as obey.

       Reply

       1. Hi Laurie,
          I’m very familiar with the Greek word for obey: hypotassō. It’s the same word for “submit” in Ephesians 5:22, 24, Colossians 3:18, and 1 Peter 3:1 when wives are commanded to submit to their husbands.

          The definition for hypotassō is, “to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject one’s self, put in subjection, obey, to submit to one’s control.” It sounds exactly like the word obey, and obey is even used as a definition or synonym for it.

          Reply

43. Scott LaPierre,
    You asked me a question and I answered it. You asked for specific scholars who had shaped my beliefs about mutuality in marriage. If you did not want me to list people and what I had learned from them then you shouldn’t have asked me about that. Yes. I know you can list people too who believe the same way you believe but I have yet to hear anyone go through the Bible and tell me they believe in the complementarian theology and use the Scripture and explain away the historical context, the cultural context, the definition of the Greek words, the verses that teach mutual love and respect, etc.
    The Bible was not written in English!
    You have to go back to the Greek to see the words. Comp preachers typically love to talk about the Greek words and definitions of those words, the historical context of a verse, the cultural context of any Scripture except these verses. There was a very well known Baptist who had been the President of the SBC and he preached an entire month on marriage spending one sermon on this idea of wifely subjugation and submission. He typically loves to delve into the Greek, mention history of that time, explains culture and customs. In this particular message he couldn’t. Because if he did he would prove himself wrong.
    I realize that what I believe is a hard pill to swallow for men because it takes away your man card to get whatever you want. That is why the comp theology is very popular in churches. Men typically run churches and they want power over their wives (pride) and they have to have a doctrine to support that.

    I could go through every verse that you want to quote about submission, headship and tell you why I believe it supports mutuality in marriage (mututal submission) but you would not accept it and would find some way to explain it away but I actually did explain why I believe what I believe then you basically told me my facts and proof was not valid because it wasn’t what you believed.

    Basically the state of marriage in the church is not good. Some would disagree with that statement but its the truth. It’s not because wives don’t want to submit it is because the church uses the Bible to disrespect, dismiss, and devalue women because of their gender. When some scholars realize from hard factual proof that No! Paul was not a misogynist and he didn’t place women in a second class role. He did not infantilize women (which is actually abusive), then comps go all out to discredit these scholars and their beliefs because they want the power they have had for a long time.

    When churches start reading what the Bible actually says instead of reading it with Complementarian glasses on I believe that they will see marriages saved, and I believe the church will fill up with people hungry for God. Disrespecting half the human race isn’t Godly or Biblical.

    Also you have stated a few times that I don’t believe in submission in marriage. Actually I do. I believe the husband and wife submit to each other as we both submit to Christ. My husband does not have a man card he can play to get what he wants. We make decisions together. And when I say together I really mean together not where he just asks me what I think so he can check that box and then go do what he wants. He treats me with respect and I treat him with respect. We also have emotional intimacy because no person feels dismissed or devalued. That is what I believe marriage should be. When both parties are respected emotional intimacy can thrive. That is what I believe because marriage was made to mirror the love that Christ has for HIs church.

    Reply

    1. Hi Laurie,
       You’re right. I forgot that I asked for those names. Sorry about that.

       So then, if I understand you, you’re saying Christ should submit to the church as much as the church should submit to Christ?

       Reply

    2. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I looked back at my reply. Nothing I said even insinuates that. If you want to know the truth, He showed the ultimate act of submission by dying on the cross for us.

       Reply

       1. Hi again Laurie,
          You said:

          I believe the husband and wife submit to each other as we both submit to Christ.

          And you said…

          That is what I believe because marriage was made to mirror the love that Christ has for Hiss church.

          Marriage does “mirror” Christ’s relationship to the church as you said, and so if husbands and wives submit to each other, than Christ also submits to the church.

          Also, if you’re interested I’d still love to hear your thoughts on Titus 2:5, which commands wives to be “obedient to their own husbands” and 1 Corinthians 11:3 which says, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (also Ephesians 5:25).

          Reply

44. Scott LaPierre, Where is your proof that that (context) was their reason for restating the word “submit” in verse 22 of Ephesians 5.
    You are right that it says in several other places for the wife to submit to her husband. Catherine Kroeger and David Scholer have done extensive research as well as Dr. Susan Hyatt into the word submit used in these passages. They state that it is important to look at the people and what marriage looked life in their lives. Back then a big problem in marriages was wife abuse(probably even worse than today). So Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar instated “sine manu” or “Marriage without hand”. in an attempt to deal with the wife abuse. IN this kind of marriage the wife would remain under the authority of her father along with her inheritance. The wife’s family could remove from the husband’s home at anytime. During the New Testament era this was the most common form of marriage. When we look at the word “submit” we cannot just pick the definition that suits us best or gives us the upper hand we have to stay as true to the context. In light of this nothing in this passage allows for the meaning “to subject” or “subordinate”. The most likely definition of “submit” is “to be identified with”). There are other cases of this word being used with similar but minorly different definitions. The historian Josephus used “hupotasso” (to attach or to append) when speaking of attaching 2 documents together. Paul’s intention was for wives to “submit” or “attach themselves” to their husbands instead of always having the option of returning to her father’s home. Instead “be joined together with your husband and form a new social unit. Paul also asks husbands and slaves to obey (hupakoua)- different word. Chain of command subjugation and unilateral obedience of the wife to the husband is not a biblical doctrine. A truly Biblical should be built on and have the goal of “oneness” through deep intimacy. Not authority over and subjugated to or subordinated to. The husband and wife should be a cohesive unit of equal partners- equal in substance and value, privilege, responsibility, function and authority.

    Reply

    1. I’m sorry. Big typo. Paul did not ask husbands and slaves to obey. He asked children and slaves to obey. And a little further down: A truly Biblical marriage should be built on….
       Sorry for so many typos here.

       Reply

       1. No problem Laurie.

          Reply

    2. Hi again Laurie,
       You can find people who claim to be Christians but deny the existence of hell, deny that homosexuality is sinful, deny the Virgin Birth. The point is, quoting people’s names and saying, “They support what I’m saying,” isn’t convincing. I can do the same with many prominent respected pastors who are strong complementarians and teach that wives should submit to their husbands. So the question isn’t, “What do all these people say?” The question is, “What does Scripture say?” I’m saying wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, because that’s what’s said a number of times in Scripture; it’s one of the most common commands in the New Testament. It’s not remotely vague or inferred. Yes, I know there are abusive husbands, but just because some men have disobeyed God’s Word doesn’t mean we change what God’s Word says.

       Even if you write all this about the word “submit” Titus 2:5 still commands wives to be “obedient to their own husbands” and 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (also Ephesians 5:25).

       One of the biggest problems with egalitarian arguments, which I think they regularly overlook, is God compares the marriage relationship to Christ’s relationship to the church. If the verses are not saying wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, then they’re also saying the church doesn’t need to submit to Christ.

       Reply

45. Scott LaPierre, I am sorry if I misunderstood or misread your question. You mentioned all the books you referenced for your book and thought you were asking the scholars who had shaped my beliefs based on their evidence. I didn’t realize you were asking specifically who said what.

    Reply

    1. More to come but tomorrow is an early day.

       Reply

    2. No problem Laurie. It’s just that I don’t remember reading any commentaries (and I look at quite a few for my studying) that attached Ephesians 5:21 to the marriage passage. With that said, even if it was part of that passage, Scripture has to be reconciled with Scripture, and plenty of other places command wives to submit to their husband; including even that passage in verse 24.

       Reply

46. Scott LaPierre, You mention Ephesians5:22 which if I can borrow your wording is THEE verse comps. Love to quote. And you mention that Verse 22 stands alone as a directive towards wives in marriage. And that verse 21 is to all believers. But in verse 22 the word “submit ” was not in the original Greek text.
    That word was added in the 5 AD. That is why in the New American Standard version that word”submit” is in italics. Therefore verse 22 cannot stand alone it has to be a continuation of verse 21. You also mention that there was a verse break between verse 21 and 22 and a heading before verse 22 that indicated those verses were regarding marriage. But in the original Greek there were no verse numbers, chapter numbers, or headings. Those were added to organize the text. The authors of the Bible were inspired by God. The editors, annotators, translators did have biases, and some prejudices. Some of those biases were inspired by tradition. Dr. Susan Hyatt’s book “In the Spirit We’re Equal” gives many more details and evidence concerning this.

    Reply

    1. Hi Laurie,
       You’re right about the word being in italics in verse 22, but the reason they added it was the context. Verse 24 does have the word “submit” or “be subject,” so they put it in verse 22 so it would make sense; however, even if it’s not in verse 22, it is in verse 24 commanding wives to submit to their husbands. Also, Colossians 3:18 says, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”, 1 Peter 3:1 says, “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,” and Titus 2:5 commands wives to “obey” or “be obedient” to their husbands.

       So if you don’t want to use Ephesians 5:22, that’s okay. You can use Ephesians 5:24, 1 Peter 3:1, Colossians 3:18, or Titus 2:5. There’s actually no mention of wives in the New Testament without a corresponding command for them to submit to their husbands.

       Reply

47. I have a toddler who has a lot of energy so my posts are here and there when I have a moment. Scott La Pierre, you said you had 2 questions then proceeded to ask several. I will answer them as I can but probably won’ t be in same post. The scholars I follow are Dr. N.T.Wright, Dr. Catherine Kroeger, Philip Payne, Scott McNight, Dr. Kevin Giles, Dr. David Scholar Dr. Kenneth Bailey, Margaret Mowczko and there are others. I have not read everything these have written so can’t answer for everything about them. But the facts that shape my beliefs I check and recheck and hold up to the Authority of the Bible.

    Reply

    1. Hi again Laurie,
       We have six children, the oldest is nine and the youngest is less than one, so I can understand that!

       You said:

       Interesting you mention Eph. 5:22-31. Scholars have pretty much proven that Paul started his discourse on marriage in vs.21.

       Then I asked you for the names of those scholars and you provided the names of scholars you read. Are you saying these scholars say Paul’s marriage passage begins at verse 21? Otherwise, I’m not sure the point, at least in relation to this argument, of sharing those names with me?

       I’m glad you “check and recheck and hold up to the authority of the Bible.” If that’s the case, you believe Paul commands husbands and wives to submit to each other, and then commands wives to submit to their husbands in the following verse (22) and then again in verse 24?

       Reply

48. Hi Scott – I want to just start with I understand that the point of your blog is to support your book on marriage – and in marriage there is an order – God, Husband, Wives… with love and respect weaving in and out and through to keep the bonds tight all provided by God in the Spirit. (totally a summary, but I think you understand my point.)

    All that being said – on this point you might have forgotten that we are living in a broken world filled with sin. In this world our society has taken these points and pushed women down – even young girls are told they have a position of submissiveness that is expected while boys are told to climb the ladders to success. I’m not saying this is good, bad, right, or wrong, I’m saying this is our current culture. A culture that impacts the words people chose to use. So please remember that. Many women bare scars of this in our society and your words do not help them heal.

    And culture is an important aspect that you seem to omit in your article. For example:
    “The Seventy were men

    They were sent out after the Twelve (Luke 10:1). Again though Jesus could have chosen thirty-five men and thirty-five women, but He chose all men.”

    These people were never all named… so we do not know who they all were. But more importantly, we know that that culture didn’t count women in their numbers, even when they were present – take the feeding of the 5 thousand… It is safe to assume there were always women in these groups… it’s even a probable assumption that there were women who remained in the group of the apostles – they were not named because there were men there, and that culture would not have mentioned women when men could be used as an authority on validity of the documents (the scripture). This assumption is because we know that there were women at the cross… how did they get there if they were not at dinner with Jesus that night? Who would have found them, and brought them to such an event, if they had not been there to see it all happen? They are not named before hand in the account because a woman’s testimony would not hold water as long as there were men who could account for it. Once all the disciples scattered, the writers of the gospels started listing the women by name because they were there and could give an account. So it is not reasonable to say there were never women in the inner circles of Jesus simply because they were not named. that ignores the culture and society of the time.

    Now I know you are going to say you get my idea, and give me some follow up questions, but how about thinking over what I said, and do some research on how women were treated by the culture at the time… then we can talk…

    Reply

    1. Hi Marissa,
       Thanks for reading and commenting.

       I’m familiar with the way women were treated in that culture (and our culture today). What I can tell you is when the Gospel is introduced – then or now – it always elevates women to a position of prominence and love they don’t know otherwise. Look at non-Christian areas of the world to see what I mean.

       Just because men have sinned doesn’t deny the truth of God’s Word. Your point seems to be that because women have been abused, or because we live in “a broken world filled with sin” the plain teaching of Scripture doesn’t apply. That’s completely untrue. Also, if you look at the marriage instruction, husbands are commanded to love and cherish their wives, and wives are commanded to submit to their husbands. If the commands to wives are denied, then the commands to men are too, and that introduces women into poor treatment.

       Since you don’t want any follow up questions, that closes off communication.

       Reply

    2. I think you misunderstood my point – this specific post of yours does not specify wives in a god-centered marriage with husbands who understand their responsibility. You addressed the societal and cultural roles of women rather than the roles of husbands and wives. The issue, and why so many comments from other women on here are going on the defensive, is that you are pointing to societal stations for women, and putting the idea of submissiveness along with it. The logical conclusion of that assertion is that women could not be in a leadership role whatsoever and that they must defer to a male if he happens to be present regardless of that particular male’s relationship with Jesus. When you reply to my comment and only point to marriage to support the submissive relationship between men and women rather than only applying to Godly marriage covenants it hardly supports the arguments you’ve made in your article.

       Reply

       1. Hi again Marissa,
          You’re right that my post “does not specify wives in a god-centered marriage with husbands who understand their responsibility,” but that’s because the post isn’t about marriage. The point of the post is contained in the title. I have lots of other posts about marriage that you can read if you like! In those posts I discuss husbands, wives, their roles and responsibilities, etc. You said:

          You addressed the societal and cultural roles of women rather than the roles of husbands and wives.

          Actually, no, I didn’t address that at all. The point of the post is demonstrating that male leadership is God’s pattern, so I provided examples of male leadership throughout the Old and New Testaments, showing that it has been, and still is, God’s pattern. You also said:

          [Women] must defer to a male if he happens to be present regardless of that particular male’s relationship with Jesus.

          1 Peter 3:1 says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” The words “even if some do not obey the word” mean even if they’re not believers, so yes, a wife’s submission is “regardless of that husband’s relationship with Jesus.” But with that said, there are qualifiers I’d make regarding a wife’s submission, and I discuss this at length in my book. I don’t want to get into it here, because that’s not the point of the post, and it would make this comment really long.

          Thanks again for reading and commenting!

          Reply

49. Reading the Bible in a historical and cultural context is important. Going back to the Greek and taking into account idioms ofthe day etc. is important . This is what most egalitarian Christians have done. This is what most egalitarian scholars have done. To paint egalitarian Christians as stretching the Scriptures is dismissive. Of course you can read the Bible with complementarian glasses on and come up with your views but take the glasses off and you most likely will find a very different picture.

    Reply

    1. Okay, thank you Laurie! Do you want to respond to the questions I asked in a previous comment?

       Reply

50. Wow! Way to pick a few verses, pull them way out of context and dismiss the verses that don’t agree with your theory. Then when someone challenges you with their belief you talk so patronizingly to them. Interesting you mention Eph. 5:22-31. Scholars have pretty much proven that Paul started his discourse on marriage in vs.21. In vs 22 the word wives was added several centuries later. That verse was written as a for example. You also didn’t mention anything about submitting ourselves a God as it says in James, only our husbands. Nor do talk about being led by the Holy Spirit, only our husband. Teaching that women are subordinate,2nd class citizens who can only work in the nursery or in women’s ministry is anusive , and disrespectful and dismissive. I would suggest that you read the book by Dr Susan Hyatt, “The Spirit,the Bible and Woman “. My prayer is that one day the church will stop limiting, and disrespecting the women and start using them as fellow heirs to win the world.

    Reply

    1. Sorry didn’t finish my thought,;to win the world for Jesus Christ.

       Reply

       1. Obeying God’s Word will always be the best way to win the world to Christ.

          Reply

    2. Hi Laurie,
       Thanks for reading and commenting.

       Will you please do two things for me? First, tell me how the verses are used out of context. Second, you said I dismissed verses that don’t agree with my theory. Can you share those verses with me? Also, I mean more than just mentioning the names of different women in Scripture. I know there are plenty of women in Scripture, but that doesn’t mean they were in leadership over men. So can you provide verses showing women in leadership over men?

       You said, “Scholars have pretty much proven that Paul started his discourse on marriage in verse 21.” What scholars is that? I have lots of commentaries in my office, and when I studied Ephesians 5 for my sermon and book, I don’t remember any scholars say that. Also, if you look here you can see these translations have a heading identifying the marriage passage beginning at verse 22.

       Plus it would make no sense for Paul to be discussing marriage in verse 21, because then he’d be contradicting himself in verse 22. Here are the two verses:

       21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

       The fact is in verse 21 Paul is discussing the mutual deference Christians should show to each other, which fits the context of verses 15-21. Then in verses 22 through 33 he discusses marriage.

       As far as the things I didn’t mention, you’re right. They don’t relate to the main point of my blog, that male leadership is God’s pattern, so I didn’t discuss them. A post about submitting to God or being led by the Holy Spirit would discuss those topics though, but again, that wasn’t the topic of this post.

       Thanks again for reading and commenting!

       Reply

    3. These were many of my points too Laurie – I even stepped back from this post, and discussed it with my husband – as faithfully submissive wife… but I’ll write my own comment too – no worries

       Reply

51. It is interesting that you place so much importance on Adam being created first. I have always tried to follow the teachings of Christ who said”the first will be last” and admonishes those who try to lord it over others as the pagans do. May we all humble ourselves to be the servant of all.

    Reply

    1. Hello Melinda (forgive me if that’s not your name),
       Thank you for reading and commenting!

       I wouldn’t say I “place so much importance on Adam being created first.” I copied those verses from Scripture, so you could say Scripture – or God – places so much importance on that fact. Paul lists that as one of the two reasons women can’t “teach or have authority over men.”

       If you’re interested, here are two other posts that elaborate even more on the topic:

       • 4 ways God established a husband’s headship at creation
       • Eve created from Adam: 4 fascinating points

       Reply

52. Yet the Bible also says: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In Galathians. After Christ there is no difference. We are all equal and we are all one in Christ.

    Reply

    1. Hi Teodora,
       That is THEE verse quoted by egalitarians. Will you look at this post I wrote a few weeks ago? Complementarianism Versus Egalitarianism. Here’s part of it:

       The Scripture most cited by egalitarians is Galatians 3:28:

       There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

       Using the verse to support egalitarianism takes it out of context because it deals with salvation. Everyone, whether Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male, or female is saved by grace through faith apart from the law and works (Galatians 3:1–25). If Paul were saying men and women are identical in terms of responsibilities, he would be contradicting numerous Scriptures he wrote outlining the differences between the genders.

       Equal doesn’t mean identical. People can be equal and still have different roles.

       If you don’t mind me asking, how do you interpret the passages Paul also wrote (Ephesians 5:22-31, 1 Peter 3:1-7, 1 Corinthians 11:1-11, Titus 2:1-5, etc) that discuss the different responsibilities between men and women?

       Reply

    2. I had no idea that was thee verse used by equlitarians.
       Yes, agree that equal does not mean identical, but still means equal.
       I think there is a woman of who Pauls speaks as being an apostle. Have to look up this.
       I also think the Catholic church has tried to do everything to dismiss the role of women in the new testament.
       Regarding the examples of women in the article. Just want to say there are examples of good and bad men, too, and we can learn from all the examples.

       Reply

       1. Hi again Teodora,
          I’m almost certain you’re referring to Junia in Romans 16:7

          Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

          They seemed to be a married couple, and their ministry was well-known and appreciated “among the apostles.” The NLT says, “They are highly respected among the apostles” and the ESV says, “They are well known to the apostles.” It’s an unbiblical stretch to say Junia is a female apostle. Although, and I don’t mean this harshly, it’s a stretch some egalitarians are more than willing to make to attempt to defend their views.

          Regarding your other comments:
          1. I definitely wouldn’t dismiss the role of women in the New Testament or the church. There are wonderful women throughout Scripture, and there have been wonderful women throughout church history.
          2. Yes, there are definitely examples of some terrible men: Nimrod, Cain, most of the kings of Israel, and even some of the most prominent male leaders were very flawed: Judah, David, Solomon, etc.

          Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.