More on Women in Charge

The most basic argument in this discussion is that "man is the head of woman" (1 Cor. 11:3). The first thing you will think is "all men rule over all women". Really? Seriously??! No, that's not right. They don't actually believe that. So they clarify (although there is no such clarification in the text itself) You have to assume that "man" and "woman" in that verse in 1 Cor. 11 refers to "husband and wife" generally, or you have to assume that "woman" is under "a man" of some sort. Women are either under their husbands, under their fathers, or under the church elders.

Let's see how that works out. A woman grows up (under her father) and then is married (under her husband). He runs a thriving restaurant business. Years later, her father dies and, shortly thereafter, her husband dies. After a period of mourning, she ... what? She has no father or husband to be under. The argument might well be that she is under the leadership of the church. Okay, fine. So ... who runs the business? Who runs her household? Can she not hire and fire? Can she not have help in her home? Does she need to turn the business and the accompanying accumulated wealth that her husband left her over to the church? Is that really the argument?

In Acts 16 we are introduced to Lydia, a "seller of purple". Apparently she was quite successful. There is no mention of someone else in charge, no reference to a husband, and no suggestion that she get right by putting her business under her husband, father, church, or any other male leadership. Then there is the famous example of Deborah. "She was a judge, not a magistrate!" Dismiss it if you will, but the biblical account isn't unclear. Deborah had a husband and children. The Bible says without apology, "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging* Israel at that time" (Judges 4:4). No hint of negative. When she received "marching orders" from God, she summoned a man -- Barak. She told him that God had commanded him to gather an army and go against General Sisera (Judg. 4:6-7). Barak agreed ... on condition that she accompany him. She did, but it cost Barak the credit. "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" (Judg. 4:9). At the end of the story, Jael, the wife of Heber, killed Sisera and was the heroine of the story. Barak didn't get the glory because he didn't follow the instructions given by God to Deborah for Barak. If women are not allowed to be in civil leadership at all, that whole thing is just plain wrong ... starting with God.

Say what you will, the Bible includes more than one reference to women who operate, apparently correctly, in leadership roles. In fact, Jesus commends the Queen of Sheba for her wisdom in seeking out Solomon and says that she declares judgment on Israel for their lack of it (Matt. 12:42). It may be uncommon, but it is not unheard of. To argue that it is unbiblical when it was God who operated with Deborah as judge is really anti-biblical. To argue that Lydia was wrong when the Bible doesn't is really a stretch. To suggest that women ought never be in roles of civil authority is to suggest that Jesus was unwise in His reference to the Queen of Sheba.

Consider, then, Isaiah 3:12. "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." "There," it is claimed, "'women rule over them', and it is not good." First, this doesn't make a command. It doesn't say, "Women should not rule." It says that whoever was leading them was misleading them. Second, it is problematic to argue that the passage is actually intended to be literal. Why would I say that? Well, we can certainly understand a literal reading of "women rule over them", but what, exactly does it mean by "infants are their oppressors"? A literal reading of this passage would demand that Israel, at the time of this writing, was ruled by women and children. There is no record anywhere of women and children ruling Israel, so what is going on? Could it possibly be that the males who were leading the country were childish and effeminate? Could it be that this was what was in mind here? I can only conclude that the language here was not intended as literal -- as often prophetic language is not -- and it would be very unwise to view this as doctrinal.

I can't seem to pull out a doctrine that requires that women must never be in a role of civil authority from the Scriptures. Others can. You decide.

__________

* Some will make an issue of "judge" here. "It doesn't mean 'magistrate'. It means 'judge' as in 'passing judgment, dispensing justice', that sort of thing." However the word is considered as a reference to "govern" as well as "judge" according to Strong's. Britannica says, "The Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as 'judge,' is closer in meaning to 'ruler'." Easton's Bible Dictionary says, "properly a magistrate or ruler, rather than one who judges in the sense of trying a cause." Adam Clark calls Deborah "the first instance of gynaecocrasy, or female government." Before Israel had kings, the government was a theocracy with "judges" serving as the go-between -- the magistrates. Samuel was the last of these judges ... and a prophet. Mitigate "judge" if you will, but it appears that the Hebrew word and the text call for "magistrate" as much as "dispenser of justice."