Author : Keith Sharp
A beloved brother has sent me a study he has done of the question, May women be in leadership positions outside the home and local church?, and has asked me to review it. His material is based on First Timothy chapter two. He is studying this issue and wishes to remain anonymous and does not want his material publicly disseminated. I shall respect both his requests. I’m honored he respects my knowledge of the Scriptures sufficiently to ask me to review the results of his diligent study, and I happily comply. We are and shall remain close friends.
This brother ends his study with an appeal to oppose the woman’s liberation movement. I have written a book called Unfading Beauty, which is a study of women’s peculiar gender roles as taught in the Scriptures. I think anyone who has read it can bear witness that I oppose the modern, humanistic women’s liberation movement.
There are some important principles on which he and I agree. It is ideal for women to marry, bear children, and be homemakers (1 Timothy 5:14). But marriage is a liberty, not a relationship God commands (1 Corinthians 7:25-26, 38). Women are to be in subjection to their own husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24), to the men in the affairs of the local church (1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 3;14-15), and to men in spiritual activities (Ibid). Two of the three preceding sentences are irreconcilable with the women’s liberation movement.
My brother questions but does not deny that 1 Timothy 3:14-15 is the theme of Paul’s first letter to Timothy. I hardly see how it can be doubted that this passage does indeed state the theme of the book.
These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
Paul simply tells Timothy why he is writing. I take his statement at face value.
It is certain from the passage itself that Paul is writing about Timothy’s relationship to the church, but it doesn’t reveal whether he means the universal church (1 Corinthians 12:28), the local congregation (1 Corinthians 1:2), or the public assembly of the local church (1 Corinthians 11:18; 14:23). But in the immediate preceding context Paul states the qualifications of elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13), and these are offices in the local church (Philippians 1:1). I believe it is obvious that the theme of First Timothy is the relationship of the evangelist (That’s what Timothy was – 2 Timothy 4:5; cf. 1 Timothy 1:3; 4:6, 12-16) to the congregation with which he labors.
A word of caution: I’m not saying nor do I believe that everything in First Timothy is limited to the relationship with the local church. But that relationship is certainly the beginning point in understanding any passage in the book.
The local church is the only earthly, organized relationship the Lord authorizes for His people functioning because they are His people (1 Corinthians 1:2), and His people, His church, are in a spiritual relationship (John 18:36; Romans 14:17; Ephesians 1:3, 22-23; 2:4-7; Colossians 1:13-14; Hebrews 12:22-24). But we may engage in spiritual activities, ie. activities that specifically and primarily pertain to our spirits (Romans 15:27), whether we are in the public worship assembly (Acts 20:7), acting as an agent of a local church (Acts 11:22-23; 13:1-3; 14:26-27), or simply discharging our duties as individual Christians in the world (Acts 8:4).
Furthermore, though all of Paul’s teaching in all his letters is spiritual in that it comes from heaven (1 Corinthians 2:9-13; Ephesians 3:1-7; Galatians 1:10-11), directs us how to go to heaven (Colossians 3:1-4), and teaches us to always put the things of heaven first (Romans 12:1-2; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 3:7-11), the apostle teaches how to behave in all relationships, both spiritual (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) and fleshly (Colossians 3:18-4:1; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:12). In First Timothy he is primarily but not exclusively concerned with the spiritual relationship, the local church.
My brother correctly points out that Paul addresses various relationships in First Timothy, and this is important, but it does not negate the fact he is primarily concerned with the preacher’s relationship to the local church.
I do believe the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 indicates Paul primarily has in mind the public worship assembly. The “men” (“andras” – males) are to “pray everywhere” (verse 8). Rules for the conduct of women follow in contrast (verses 9-12) then some the reasons for these limitations on women (verses 13-15). I believe the contrast makes it obvious Paul is giving men the role of leading in prayer where men and women come together for spiritual reasons, whereas the women are to dress in a godly fashion (verses 9-10) and to be submissive (verses 11-12).
Since godliness is demanded at all times in all relationships (cf. 1 Timothy 2:2; the Greek words for “godliness” in verses 2 and 10 are not the same but have the same basic meaning.), women should always dress as befits godliness.
My friend really identifies the issue when he notes, “Our point of difference with some, is the application of women subjection – is it the same in the secular as it is in the religious?” That really is what his article and this review are primarily about.
Does the Lord require women to be submissive in all relationships? If so, no relationships are exempt. If not, then we must look to the Scriptures to discern in what relationships they must be submissive.
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1; cf. Colossians 3:20). Must a son below the age of maturity in his parents’ home obey his mother? If so, the submission of women does not apply in every relationship. If not, I would like someone to explain Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20 to me. And I would not like to see the results in the homes of Christians. We already see the results in the world at large.
My brother defended the position that “women are subject to all men in a lesser degree than their subjection to their husbands”. I would inquire on what scriptural basis he adds “in a lesser degree”. I also wonder if he is willing to accept the consequences of this position (Even as he wonders if I will accept the consequences of mine). A few questions will underscore this point.
- If a man other than her husband is visiting in the home of a woman, must she submit to him?
- Can he tell her how to decorate her home?
- Can he tell her what to prepare for meals?
- Can he demand she train her children in a certain way?
- May a single woman hire men to do repair work on her house and tell them what work she wants them to do?
- Plain People I have been around also believe women must be subject to men in all areas of life. They apply this by demanding that every unmarried woman must live with a family and submit to the male head of that household. Are they right in making this demand? If not, why not? How can a single woman handle her own affairs without sometimes being over a man? These are not hypothetical problems. This is the manner of life Plain People bind on single women in their congregations.
My dear brother dismisses all Old Testament teaching as irrelevant. There are two extremes in the use of the Old Testament, and both are flawed. It is true that no part of the old is our law today (Galatians 5:1-4), but it is equally erroneous to wave the Old Testament aside as teaching us nothing (Romans 15:4). For example, murder is wrong because Christ forbids it (e.g., Romans 13:8-10), not because Moses did (Exodus 20:13), but since the New Testament does not change the definition of the outward act of murder, we learn from the Old Testament that the just administration of the death penalty is not murder (Exodus 21:12 et al).
The same principle applies to feminine subjection.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And 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 (1 Timothy 2:11-14).
Whatever principle the apostle here teaches is based on creation. It’s always been true. So, Old Testament passages, though they do not state the law that applies to us, do exemplify the application of the law.
The principle of feminine subjection is also taught in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34-35 and is based on creation in these passages as well.
But there are several biblical, approved examples of female leadership of men.
“Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4). One role of the judges was to rule Israel (Ruth 1:1). Deborah commanded Barak to lead the army of Israel against Sisera (Judges 4:6, 14).
Abigail gave orders to male servants in her household (1 Samuel 25:19, cf. NASB), and David blessed her for her wise action (verses 32-34).
Esther became Queen of Persia (Esther 2:17). In her role as the adopted daughter of Mordecai, she obeyed him (Esther 2:10, 20). But as Queen, she gave orders to Mordecai, which he obeyed (Esther 4:16-17). She gave orders to male servants (Esther 4:5, 10, 15). Esther as Queen, along with Mordecai, established the Feast of Purim for the entire Jewish people (Esther 9:29-32).
Then Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, with Mordecai the Jews, wrote with full authority to confirm this second letter about Purim… So the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book (verses 29, 32).
So, what are the applications of the obligation of women to submit to male leadership?
As originally given, and this does form the basis of male leadership and female subjection, the husband was simply given rule over his wife.
To the woman He said:
‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.’ (Genesis 3:16).
Of course, this principle is incorporated into the New Testament (Ephesians 5:22-24).
But, as we have found, the New Testament demands that women be subject to men in the spiritual realm, activities in relationship to the local church and activities that are primarily spiritual, such as worship and teaching the word of God (1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-12).
Wives of unbelieving husbands must seek to win them to Christ by “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worthy in God’s sight.” (1 Peter 3:1-4, NIV). “Gentle” is the word which is also translated “meek”. It was a fundamental trait manifested by Jesus (Matthew 11:29), one of the eight qualifies which are to distinguish citizens of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:5), and an essential element of true wisdom (James 3:17). Worldly people, by inclination and training selfish and self-assertive, view meekness as weakness. But true gentleness or meekness is a great quality of character reflective of true inner strength and necessary to salvation. Both men and women must develop this character trait. “Quietness” denotes “tranquility arising from within, causing no disturbance to others” (Vine. 3:242). A quiet woman is the opposite of the busybody who spends her time meddling in others’ affairs. but Paul commands all Christians to exercise this quality (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12).
I have no sympathy with the women’s liberation movement. It is destructive of home, church, society and nation. But an over reaction based on misunderstanding of Scripture can case Christians to become sectarian, even as the Plain People are sectarian (binding their man made laws on all with whom they will have fellowship). We don’t find truth by looking for the midpoint between extremes, but on the subject of feminine subjection, the truth is between the extremes of the women’s liberation movement and the Plain People.
Here are truths of Scripture we must teach, defend, and exemplify. Wives must submit to their own husbands. Women must submit to men in the congregation and in activities that are primarily spiritual. Women have the liberty of taking leadership roles over men in secular relationships outside the home, such as civil government, business, social activities, and secular class rooms. Yes, if a good woman runs for President in opposition to an evil man, I will vote for the woman. To bind on women more than this is to make human laws.
Works cited
Bible, New International Version
Bible, New King James Version (all quotations unless otherwise noted)
Vine, W.E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
