Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 11

"As Also Saith the Law"

I Corinthians 14:34

The only time the law suggests subjection of women to men is in Genesis 3:16, "and thy desire will be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Note, the law of God in the Garden of Eden did not say men shall rule over women, but "thy husband will rule over you" - over Eve, the wife of Adam. This was not a man-woman law, but a husband-wife law.

Someone argues that all the sermons recorded in the New Testament were preached by men, and the instruction to do the work of an evangelist was given to a man (II Timothy 4:5). Philip's daughters must have preached something as did the sisters in Romans 16, and I Corinthians 11 and 14. Furthermore, the only New Testament command to "drink wine for your stomach's sake" was given to a man. Would anyone conclude that women couldn't drink wine if they had a stomach ailment? Such an argument is specious.

The reference "as also saith the law" might refer to Genesis 3:16, which was a husband-wife relationship, not a man-woman relationship. In fact, no Biblical text ever suggests that men generally are to have dominion over women. God approved just the opposite, as we shall see later. Nor does it teach that women in general are to be in submission to men in general. Therefore, to generalize beyond the husband-wife relationship is to go beyond the law and the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments.

If the law really backs up the argument that God's original intent was that men generally were to have dominion over women generally, what are the exceptions? Who makes the exceptions?

1. May a heretic rule over a faithful Christian woman?
2. Does a 14-year-old baptized boy rule over his 40-year-old mother, 60-year-old grandmother, or 80-year-old great-grandmother?
3. Does God's law require Christian women to be in subjection to non-Christian men?
4. If the above are not Biblical absolutes, who will we empower to draw the lines?

Furthermore, no one really believes that all men are to have dominion over all women. Would anyone argue so as to be utterly inconsistent in the face of thousands of examples of women ruling over men on the job, in government, and in church-related institutions?

The Genesis account of Adam and Eve, a husband and wife, adds additional credence to the translation of "gune" and "aner" to wife and husband. It would read, "as also saith the law, and if they [wives] would learn anything let them [wives] ask their own husbands at home." This was the same principle God laid down for the first husband and wife, nothing more.

The Old Testament nowhere prohibits women from prophesying and does not require them to be silent in the presence of men nor to be in submission to men generally.

Certainly the law did not require women to be silent in assemblies. There is no command from Genesis to Malachi that prohibits women from speaking or asking questions in assemblies. The Old Testament only once refers to submission of a woman to a man, and it refers to a wife and a husband (Genesis 3:16).

Sarah, in Genesis 21:8-12, not only told Abraham to cast Hagar out, but God told Abraham to "hearken unto her voice" - in other words, to obey her. She told the man she called "Lord" what to do, but God directed her husband to obey her. She ruled over him in this instance. God was pleased. It doesn't sound as if God's law demanded that wives be silent or that they have no authority in the family.

Abigail used her power of persuasion to change King David's mind (I Samuel 25). King David told her, "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent thee to me this day and blessed be thy discretion and blessed be thou that has kept me from bloodguiltiness"(I Samuel 25:32-33). Does this sound like God, from creation, wanted women to be in submission and silent? Or, does it sound like God could use women even to instruct kings? Here an ordinary woman teaches, persuades and guides the King of God's people. No one would argue that she violated God's law.

Esther used her power of persuasion to change the mind of King Ahasuerus.

Both of these women could have been so submissive as to cause unnecessary hurt to others. But instead, they spoke up, even to kings and to good ends. What honest and conscientious Christian woman today would be so submissive as to allow men in authority to teach and practice what is wrong? There is no moral basis for silence and submission in such cases. There is a moral basis for arguing that women should speak out in such cases.

In Judges 13, an angel of the Lord appeared, not unto Manoah, but to his wife and told her of Samson's birth. The angel instructed her about the Nazarite vow. God had no problem under "the law" in revealing His message to this woman, and having her, in turn, instruct her husband. Like Manoah, most male chauvinists of today would not accept the message from a woman's mouth. They would have to hear it for themselves (verses 11-14). Manoah's wife continued to give him instruction and wise counsel (vs. 24) with God's approval under "the law."

God had a number of women who were prophetesses. They prophesied to men, even kings.

Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20) and a co-leader with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4).

There was a little Jewish maiden who turned the head of Naaman and led him to the prophet of God and his healing. Naaman was "host of the King of Syria, a great man with his master and honorable." I have heard hundreds of sermons about the necessity of completely doing God's will from this story. Naaman was not clean until he dipped the seventh time in the River Jordan. But few have honored the little girl who pointed this important man in the right direction. Some, no doubt, have used this proof text illustration to prove that we must keep all of God's laws, two of which they believe include keeping women silent and in subjection while overlooking the obvious role this young girl played in instructing her master in this story.

Deborah held three offices over Israel. She was a judge, a prophetess and a military leader. She delivered God's will to Barak regarding the war with Canaan. She ordered him into battle and accompanied him in battle. They defeated Tabin, King of Canaan, and brought rest to Israel for 40 years. Her song is a part of Holy writings and teaches men and women to this day (Judges 5).

In the same battle it was Jael, a woman, who drove the tent spike through the temple of Sisera. She could have cowered in the corner of the tent, being submissive to man as some claim God ordered from creation. But she didn't. She took a leadership role and brought down a captain of the host of the enemies of God's people. Was she submissive to men? No. Her take-charge attitude brought her highest honors. "Blessed above all women shall Jael be" (Judges 5:24).

So, Deborah was not a woman who was submitting to men, she was ruler of men with God's full approval (Judges 4-5). As a result of her rule "the land had rest for forty years" (Judges 5:31).

Hannah prayed in public (I Samuel 1). But, typical of male chauvinism was Elkanah's response to her desire for a son: "Am I not better to thee than ten sons?" However, there is no indication that God was upset that this woman was praying in the presence of men. The only thing Eli was concerned about was that it was silent, not because it had to be.

Huldah was a prophetess (II Kings 22:14 and II Chronicles 34:22-33). She preached God's word to the King of Judah, to Milkiah the High Priest, and to other men, which helped bring about a true reformation in God's people rarely seen in all the Bible.

Noadiah was a prophetess (Nehemiah 6:14).

Isaiah refers to a prophetess in Isaiah 8:3-4.

Anna was a prophetess and went forth proclaiming the coming of Christ to all who looked for redemption (Luke 2:36-38).

No, the law did not require silence on the part of women. Nor did it prohibit them from telling forth the word of God to both men and women, kings, high priests or otherwise. So, there is no Old Testament precedent for the suggestion that the silence here refers to general silence by women in a worship service, a teaching situation, or as an indication that women should in any way be in submission to men generally. Can anyone conclude that the law forbade women from prophesying? The New Testament allowed Philip's four daughters to prophesy. God used them. He did not rebuke any of these prophetesses. He allowed it under both His laws. Would God have called all these women to prophesy and blessed their messages if they were violating His law? Of course not.

Psalm 68:11 reads, "The Lord giveth His word: The women who publish the tiding are a great host." This does not sound like publishing the word was, or was going to be, restricted to men. No doubt, this scripture refers to God's spokeswomen.

The law did not demand silence of women in assemblies, nor the subjection of women generally to men generally. In fact, under the law women were permitted to prophesy, counsel, direct, instruct husbands, wage wars, judge, direct kings and high priests, without bringing down the slightest wrath from on High. Rather, they brought down blessings to God's people from on High.