In a previous article we began a review of a “Document On Women In Worship And Ministry” which was on the website of the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ, Franklin, Tennessee. The church there is allowing women to take a leading role in the worship services. In our last article, we had looked at the author’s attempt to justify a woman’s leading men based on a perverted view of I Timothy 2:11-12. Now, we want to consider his attempt to justify the same by the abuse of Galatians 3: 28. We also want to look at some Bible examples which the author misused to try to support his view that a woman can teach over men.

Judaizing teachers were filtering into the churches of Galatia, attempting to bind circumcision on them; so Paul wrote to offset their error. He pointed out that the Abrahamic covenant with the promises therein was before the law of Moses. This covenant was not disannulled by the law of Moses. Paul said the law [of Moses] was [note: not is] our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster [the law of Moses]. Salvation is the heart of the issue in this passage. It makes no difference if one is Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female; all can be one in Christ Jesus. And if we are Christ’s, then we are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

Paul is not saying that when one is baptized he ceases to be a Jew or Greek, or that he ceases to be in bondage or a freeman, or one ceases to be a certain gender. He is saying that salvation is for all regardless of his race, social class or gender. Why did Peter hypocritically withdraw himself from the Gentiles when the Jews arrived in Antioch, if there be no distinction in the races? Peter was guilty of racism; however, not because he recognized the difference in the races, but because of his prejudice against the Gentiles. He wanted to remain in good standing with the Jews. But Paul was right to rebuke him before all because of his hypocrisy. But is racism a parallel to not allowing a woman to take leading roles in the church? The homosexuals use the race card to defend their “right” to marry. However, the refusal to allow a woman’s taking a leading role in the assembly is not on par with the refusal to serve blacks at a restaurant or refuse to allow blacks to use the same restrooms as whites. The former is following God’s word; the latter is wholly contrary to God’s word. The Galatian passage highlights the salvation that is proffered to all – whether one be Jew, or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. And circumcision, a practice of the Jews, did not matter (Gal. 5:6).

In the document cited several Bible examples are given as proof that women can be in leadership roles over men. Let us consider them. Miriam is mentioned as being in a leadership role. No doubt she was a leader. God himself said through the prophet Micah, “For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, And redeemed thee out of the house of servants; And I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” (Micah 6:4). But whom did she lead? Let us allow the Bible to speak: ”And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.” (Ex. 15:20.) [Bold. BFV] So, she led the women, not the men. In fact, when she and Aaron wanted to be in a position of authority as Moses was, God struck her with leprosy. It is a good thing some of these women who want to lead today were not living in the time of Moses, or they might have been struck with leprosy as well.

Deborah, a prophetess and judge, is brought up next. The inspired historian says that “the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” (Judges 4:4-5.) There is no proof that Deborah taught over men nor dominated over men in her judgments. There is nothing in the text that indicates that she prophesied publicly to a mixed audience. It is interesting to note that the children of Israel went to her for judgment, which would indicate a private setting. However, even if we were to grant that which is assumed by some, the period of the judges was a lawless time. The last verse of the book of Judges says, “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was lawful in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25.)

Huldah the prophetess is another example given by those who want to justify a woman’s being in a leadership position. We read of her in 2 Kings 22 14ff and 2 Chronicles 34:22ff, a parallel passage). When the book of the law was found during the reign of the young king, Josiah, five men were sent by the king to the second quarter of Jerusalem (KJV says “college”) to inquire of the Lord. The first text read:

14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her. 15 And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, 16 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: 17 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched….

Since Huldah was a prophetess she was speaking for God; however, this does not mean that she was teaching over men, nor dominating them. She certainly was not teaching publicly over men as some women are doing today. Some brethren deny that a woman can teach a man anything, but Huldah was telling these men what God said. They went to her in private. She was not on the rooftop proclaiming to others what God had said. She told these men this in private, and no amount of exegetical gymnastics can prove otherwise.

Someone says: What about Esther? Yes, what about her? There is nothing in the book of Esther that indicates she in anyway taught over men or usurped authority over men as some women are doing today. She recognized her place, and used her influence to save her people.

In the first century there were women who prophesied (Acts 2:17; 21:8-9); however, it begs the question to argue that they were teaching over men. Such would have been a violation of I Timothy 2:11-12 and I Corinthians 14:34. Even in the church at Corinth where there were women who prophesied, there is nothing that indicates they were teaching men in a mixed assembly.

The Informer

Vol, 68 No. 23

March 22, 2015