Women of Valor

When anyone asks what the Bible says women are allowed to do, they’ve already conceded that the question is not whether women are to be restricted, but how much. The real discussion should be on the whether. So let’s begin with a bit of satire to illustrate why this question is even raised.

Brother Bob has felt The Call. He is sure God wants him in full-time service to the Body of Christ. So he goes to those who have been called to such service before him: the Women of God.

With much passion and conviction, Bob relates his unmistakable calling, his heartfelt desire to please God, and his devotion to seeing the lost saved and the saved nurtured and trained. Others testify to his proven dedication and action in other areas, and his lifelong practice of all Jesus taught. He is ready, willing, and able to serve in leadership.

But the Women of God respond: “You are a male, and God has only ever used female terms to describe the church (2 Cor. 11:2). This is because scripture says plainly that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12), who refused to protect Eve when she was being tempted by the serpent (Gen. 3:6). Then God promised the Savior through her Seed alone (Gen. 3:15, Gal. 4:4). That is why God has called a man to leave his parents and join to his wife (Gen. 2:24), clearly indicating her superiority. Remember too that it was a man who betrayed Jesus (Mat. 26:24), a man who denied him three times (John 18:17, 25,27), and men who had him crucified (Luke 24:7). Even his own male disciples deserted him in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:50), and they were hiding in fear behind locked doors while the women were seeing the risen Lord at the tomb, even though the Roman guards fainted in fear (John 20).

“All men have shared Adam’s weakness and should therefore never be given church leadership responsibility. God even predicted that all men would lust for control (Mat. 20:25-28) and go against what is so clearly shown in nature. Their physical strength is proof that they are meant for manual labor, and their aggressiveness (Gen. 6:11,13) and blame-shifting (Gen. 3:12) make them unsuitable for this ministry. Be happy in your proper role; there are many other areas in which you can serve God, such as fixing things and putting up buildings. Isn’t that enough?”

Bob is devastated. How could he have been so wrong? And why would God call him to something so clearly yet forbid him to pursue it? Does God really prefer women and “look on the flesh”? After all, it was the woman’s seed that crushed Satan; is it true that the reason is males alone carry the “sin gene”? Is he sinning against God by aspiring to leadership?

But Bob, being a good solid Christian who wouldn’t think of going against the wisdom of the Women of God, resigns himself to his proper place. He even buys a tool belt and takes classes in woodworking. He spends the rest of his life building and repairing, but never quite loses that old feeling, that perhaps God really had meant more for him. Yet he remembers that such a feeling is just his dormant “Ahab Spirit” trying to rebel.

This satire is patterned exactly after arguments used against women in leadership, whether before or after Christ’s first coming, in society, the church, or the home. Similar scripture twisting was done to condone slavery in early American history, and has always been done against women. Both groups were restricted solely on the basis of genetics, summarized as follows:

• the patriarchs practiced it
• God gave instructions to Moses on how to regulate it
• Jesus never expressly condemned it
• None of the people in this group were chosen by Jesus for His inner circle of disciples
• there are no examples of individuals in this group being named “pastors” or elders
• Paul gave instructions on how Christians in this group are to behave and submit
• God never refers to Himself in terms of this group
• The people in this group are fully human but must stay in divinely-ordained “roles” to keep the proper order in society

Eventually it was finally conceded that these arguments for slavery twisted scripture, but it was never conceded for restraining women. This is a Pharisaical level of double standard.

In contrast, we see in scripture many examples and teachings of the equality of women in all spheres of life. Prov. 31:10 reads “a woman of valor” in the Hebrew, yet as shown here it’s often rendered “a woman of virtue or noble character”. (Even the highly-detailed NET Bible makes excuses in footnote Z for not translating the Hebrew word as they would for a man.) Note also that the passage describes the ideal woman as strong, wise, dependable, running a business, and making independent decisions for the family. Ps. 68:11 speaks of the “great company of women who proclaim the good news”, yet as shown here, “women” are replaced with “those”.

In the New Testament, almost all translations obscure clear instances of women in leadership. In Rom. 16:1, the NET once again weakly renders Phoebe a “servant” and makes excuses for why diakonos (masculine form typically rendered deacon) can’t mean for her what it would for any man. In the next verse she’s called a “help” rather than a guardian (Greek prostatis; see Strong’s Lexicon). Likewise, in verse 7 Junia is merely “well-known to the apostles” when the Greek clearly states that she is “outstanding among” them. 1 Cor. 11 supposedly says “Chloe’s household”, but the Greek reads “of Chloe”, followed by “of Paul”, “of Apollos”, and “of Cephas” (Peter.) She is someone leading a house church and being followed, not siimply a housewife.

When the New Testament appeals to Genesis regarding the roles of men and women in the church, an honest reading of Genesis shows that the reason for this appeal is not a question of superiority but of origination. Paul needed to combat the false teachings of the Gnostics, who among other things claimed that Eve was the source or originator (“author”) of Adam. Paul therefore appealed to Genesis as stating that Adam came first, and that he sinned without being beguiled. We cannot ignore the fact that immediately after he said “a woman must not authentein (dominate oppressively) a man”, he said “man was the source of woman”. There's no other reason for Paul to follow the first with the second, since there's no hint of the idea of authority in the Genesis account he refers to. To base authority on the order of creation is both unbiblical and illogical.

Even if authority were in view in Genesis, the fact would still remain that Paul is only teaching against this unlawful usurping, not that a woman must never teach a man. There is no Biblical basis for making lists of what things are considered “authoritative” and what are not (sometimes called “hermeneutical gerrymandering”). It’s the tactic of the Pharisees, who heaped rule after rule over the laws of God and placed an impossible burden on the people. Think of the implications of this view: When exactly does a boy become a man? What makes a teaching authoritative? How can a woman prophesy with her head covered (per Paul’s command) while remaining absolutely silent (also per Paul’s command)? There are no answers, only arbitrary preferences. Paul is absolutely silent on where these imaginary lines are to be drawn.

Tampering

As if it isn’t bad enough to mistranslate, there is evidence of tampering with the original language text itself. A blatant example is when the United Bible Societies, who determine the most accurate Greek wording, changed the woman Junia to a male form unknown in the first century. This happened in the 1950s and stood for decades, in violation of the committee’s own rules for requiring textual/historical attestation for such a change. Likewise, when it could be sustained no longer, the rules were violated again in order to change the name back to the feminine form. But in those decades many translations were made into many languages, which eliminated the only female clearly designated an apostle.

From the Better Bibles Blog (emphasis mine):

“Epp shows that earlier editions of the UBS actually gave the unattested name Junias an A rating, claiming majuscule support for that ruling (when majuscules are unaccented!). Epp reveals (on p. 54) that, by Bruce Metzger’s own admission in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed), the UBS committee made their ruling based on the gender assumptions imposed by some members of the committee (Textual Commentary, p. 475). Also notable is the persistence of lexicons and other reference works in locating the name under the nominative masculine.

An indictment is made: “In broad terms, it is fair to say that to a large extent our modern lexica, grammars, and many commentaries, especially during the past century, have carried forward— indeed, have aided and abetted— the tradition of ‘Junias,’ masculine” (p. 58). Chapters 9 and 10 provide helpful charts (pp. 62, 63, 66) which offer appalling visual confirmation that an arbitrary shift away from seeing Junia as a woman took place in the histories of Greek texts and English translations. (Regrettably, Epp does not mention the TNIV’s correction of the NIV’s masculine mistake.)”

Then we have this for the Old Testament by scholar and medical doctor Katharine Bushnell:

621. I think we find another case of prejudiced translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word translated “children” in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of the verb “to glean,” “abuse,” “practice.” It is translated “glean” in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:21, Judges 20:45, and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as “children” anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word altogether is used for “children,” and “child,” in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with “women.”

As to the word translated “women”: Two words, without the rabbinical vowel “points,” are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-shim. The first word means “exactors;” the one with a vowel mark under the initial letter means “women.” The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the word means one or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word “children” to match it. Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them.“

622. There seems little in the context to support the translation “children” and “women.” But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the “gleaners,” (that is, “tax-gatherers”) and “extortioners,” they are threatened in the following language: “The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of His people, and the princes (‘rulers,’ masculine, not feminine gender), thereof for ye have eaten up the vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces of the poor?” Because of this context, we believe that OPTION took the wrong turn when it decided to translate this verse as it stands in our English version; and that this translation would have had a strong showing up of its sophistries, had educated women been on the last Revision Committee.13 (emphasis mine)

The root of the issue

It all boils down to preserving personal authority. But if authority never resides in our flesh, there is no authority to argue about, because no one has it (or is denied it) simply for how they were born. Only scripture carries authority; it is “the teachings of the Apostles”, inspired by God. Any believer the Holy Spirit decides to empower can read, understand, and proclaim it. Never are the spiritual gifts said to be given out on the basis of the flesh.

No one is to dominate or to usurp the authority of the one and only Head, Jesus. The egalitarian position is not at all about wanting anyone to dominate, but for there to be the equality Paul spoke about in Gal. 3:28: “In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, not even male and female”. Male entitlement seeks to claim authority that God has not given, to dominate and rule, to dictate and command. Softening the term by calling it “servant leadership” is disingenuous. If you’re a servant, you don’t fight to prevent others from serving with you. Only those who believe they have privileges will fight to protect them, because those accustomed to privilege see equality as oppression.

It also often boils down to pure hatred. Read these quotes:

• “Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman… Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity.” Rabbi Eliezer
• “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily Gods image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.” St. Tertullian
• “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” St. Augustine of Hippo
• “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” St. Thomas Aquinas
• “If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.” Martin Luther
• “Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That’s the bottom line.” Jerry Falwell
• “God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7)” The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood
• “make dads the godly leaders [of the family] with the women in submission, raising kids for the glory of God.” Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
• “In the beginning God made man male and female. He made Adam first, and then made Eve from Adams rib. This order of creation subordinates wives to their husbands in marriage, and women to men in the church. As an act of submission to their Creator women are commanded to submit to their husbands and to male leadership in the church. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in any formal capacity in the church.” Reformation Fellowship of the East Valley, Mesa, AZ

Can anyone reconcile such attitudes from scripture? Can they harbor such thoughts alongside the indwelling Holy Spirit? How can a Christian’s conscience not at least quiver a little while they engage in slander, or alter the scriptures, or defy “not so with you” (Luke 22:26, Mat. 20:26-28)?

Conclusion

In 1 Sam. 16:6-7 we read,

When they arrived, Samuel noticed Eliab and said to himself, “Surely, here before the Lord stands his chosen king.” 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don't be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

Has God changed? Does the Holy Spirit "check under the hood" before giving out spiritual gifts? Jesus taught us to reject the selfish and ambitious behavior of the world. When he washed his disciples’ feet, he demonstrated what a true “servant leader” looks like. Humility is required for Christian leadership, along with faithfulness, exemplary behavior, and spiritual gifting. The emphasis is always on character, rather than social standing or genetics. Nobody fights for the last place in line.

We must ask ourselves who it is that would want to restrain half the Body of Christ. Culture has always, excepting perhaps a generation or two, treated women as in need of oversight not required of men, and often denied women basic human rights. So who should be criticized for “bowing to culture”? Culture has, and in some cases still does, approved of slavery, yet Christians led the abandonment of that sin. How can we not also abandon this sin against half the people who have ever lived?

Further Reading

This article only scratches the surface of the issue. To address every little detail, please see the book You Are All One. Please also see this livestream covering “stolen valor” of women in society.