Month: March 2025

See pages 119 (starting at PDF page 13) thru 121 pulled from Rev. Matthew Miller’s Masters thesis here.

Download the link to the July 2015 interview on the sin of ‘Mama Bears’ with Rev. Det Bowers of Columbia, S.C., on the Tara Show (106.3 Word) in Greenville, S.C., at this QR Code. Two files to download.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q.124. Who are the father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A.  By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth. P.T.   Pr 23:22, 25; Eph 6:1,2; 1Ti. 5:1,2;Ge 4:20-22; 45:8; 2Ki. 5:13; 2:12;13:14; Ga 4:19; Isa 49:23.

Q.126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
A.  The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals. P.T.  Eph 5:21; 1Pe. 2:17; Ro 12:10.

Q.130. What are the sins of superiors?
A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them,[a] an inordinate seeking of themselves,[b] their own glory,[c] ease, profit, or pleasure;[d] commanding things unlawful,[e] or not in the inferiors to perform;[f] counselling,[g] encouraging,[h] or favouring them in that which is evil;[i] [j] dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good;[k] correcting them unduly;[l] careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger;[m] provoking them to wrath;[n] or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.[o] 

Footnotes: Proof Text Below
a] Eze. 34:2-4,  Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that whihc was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
[b] Phil. 2:21  For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s
[c] John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
[d] Isa 46:10-11 His watchman are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, everyone for his gain, from his quarter. Dt 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
[e] Dan 3:4-6 Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.  Acts 4:17, 18 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
[f] Ex. 5:10-18;  And the taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers, and they spake to the people, saying, Thus saith Pharaoh, I will not give you straw. Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it: yet not ought of your work shall be diminished. So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw. And the taskmasters hasted them, saying, Fulfil your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw. And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh’s taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to day, as heretofore? Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants? There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people. But he said, Ye are idle, ye are idle: therefore ye say, Let us go and do sacrifice to the Lord. Go therefore now, and work; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks  Mt 23:2, 4  Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:,…For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
[g] Mt 14:8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger.  Mk 6:24 And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist.
[h] 2 Sam.13:28 Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say unto you, Smite Amnon; then kill him, fear not: have not I commanded you? be courageous, and be valiant.
[i] 1 Sam. 3:13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
[j]  N/A
[k] John 7:46-49 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.  Col. 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Ex. 5:17 But he said, Ye are idle, ye are idle: therefore ye say, Let us go and do sacrifice to the Lord.
[l] 1Pet. 2:18-20   Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. Heb 12:10  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Dt 25:3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
[m] Ge 38:11, 26 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house….And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. Ac 18:17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.
[n] Eph 6:4   And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
[o] Gen. 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. I Ki 12:13-16 And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him;And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. 1 Kings 1:6 And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly man; and his mother bare him after Absalom. 1 Sam. 2:29-31 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? herefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.

By Paul Dorr 2010

What is Eisegesis? It is the hermeneutical principle (opposite of exegesis) describing the practice of forcing a pre-conceived bias (in Farris’ case, a profitable one at that) on one’s exposition of the Word of God. 

In a letter dated Dec. 12, 1997, to an unnamed home-school mother, Michael Farris, founder of Home School Legal Defense Association, established his belief as to why the government has the Biblical right to punish a parent who does not teach their child to read.  An excerpt from that letter follows.   It reveals his fundamental Biblical error, which, when believed by tens of thousands of home-school families, helps provide the fuel to his profitable enterprises.

He writes,

“I believe that God commands parents to teach their children. Deut. 6:7; Eph. 6:4. God does not command or authorize the government to teach children. God does not command or authorize the church to teach children (although Scripture does command the church to teach young men and women). I do not feel that I can interpret this scriptural pattern for others. But for me and my house, I believe that the Bible requires my wife and I to teach our children ourselves. (When they are young men and women we believe the church can play a substantial role and this is why our oldest daughter attends a Christian college).

“I also believe that God commands the government to punish those who do evil. I Peter 2:14. I believe that this includes the power of government to punish parents who do evil to their children. If a parent rapes a child, beats a child with chains, intentionally breaks a child’s arm, or intentionally starves a child the government has the responsibility to punish such evil doing. Likewise, if a parent denies their child food, clothing, basic shelter, or education I believe the government can punish such a parent because God requires the parent to furnish all these things to their child.

“Stated simply, if a parent has a child who has the basic intelligence to be capable of reading the Bible, and that parent deliberately fails to teach that child to read (by the time the child is twelve years old, for example) the government has the authority to punish such a parent because the parent has done an evil thing as defined by God. “But if anyone provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I Timothy 5:8.

Here’s where Farris’s train flies off the tracks –

“Likewise, if a parent denies their child food, clothing, basic shelter, or education I believe the government can punish such a parent because God requires the parent to furnish all these things to their child.”

He doesn’t seem to understand the routine Biblical premise that there are many things the Bible declares to be evil, which still don’t rise to the Biblical requirement of civil sanctions.  How about the husband not loving the wife as Christ loved the church – and goes out every night with ‘the boys’.   Evil?  Yes.  Should the civil magistrate punish him and throw him in jail?  No, as there is no such Biblical warrant! How about the man who made a private, but false statement about a fellow Christian in church and refused to repent, when asked to?  Evil? Yes.  Civil punishment? No! Pages of such examples could be written regarding such evils, where the role of the civil authorities in 1 Peter 2:14 does not apply.

A father who deliberately starves his child to death receives the punishment of the civil authorities – yes!  He broke the 6^th commandment (Thou shall do no murder) and God commands it be punished by the civil magistrate. (Ex. 21:12,13, Num. 35:16-17, 18-33, Gen. 9:6).

The Bible has many clear teachings on the nature of sins that rise to civil crimes – those blaspheming God, violating covenants and contracts, against the person’s body, property, public slander, perjury in public testimony, etc.  But spiritual harm done through willful neglect to teach children to read – so that they may read and understand the Law-word of God – evil as such is, is not a civil crime.  If willful, it may rise to pastoral and church discipline.  Even then, what if a family in financial crisis (maybe part of an entire economic depression) willfully chooses not to pay to educate their children so that they can afford to purchase food and medicine for them?  When civil laws are to be uniformly applied (Deut. 10:17-19, 24:14-15), should the government yet “punish these parents” too?  Should the church even discipline them?  Clearly not!

Farris defends his conclusions by wresting 1 Timothy 5:8 far out of its context.  He applies his eisegesis.  Read from verse 1 through 16 of chapter five. Context is critical in this passage as it is an application of the 5^th and 8^th commandments – honoring thy father and thy mother and not stealing from the church.  It pertains mostly to the elderly.  This text is making the distinction between the widows who “trust in God” (v. 5) and yet have, as Matthew Henry’s Commentary says, no family to provide for them as the 84 yr. old widow Anna lacked, in Luke 2:36-38.  Those are to be taken in by the church (Luke 2: 37).  The 1Timothy 5 text also makes the distinction between the Godly widows and the ungodly – she that liveth in pleasure (v. 6).  Again, the Godly widow who have no family are to be cared for by the church, like Anna was.

But the family of such Godly widows, who have means and who yet do not provide for “his own” (v. 8), thus forcing their mothers to become the burden of the church, as v.16 condemns, are those who have denied the faith. Such Christians are, in affect, attacking the church’s diaconal work. Even then, Paul does not call on the State to punish those Christians who are so burdening the church. His response is limited to declaring their spiritual state in verse 8.

A categorical condemnation of a Christian father who does not teach his child to read, and as a result call for the civil authorities to punish him – can not be wrested from 1 Tim. 5:8. Rather Farris reads it into this text. Why?

Not sure, but my guess is that this provides a great guilt/fear manipulation to convince Christian home-school parents that they must submit to the most egregious aspect of the 19^th century Prussian egalitarian, democratic experiment of civil religion, known as ‘government education’ – that is, their “compulsory attendance” laws.  The original premise of such laws was to insure that the student learn how to read, by being in school.   America’s mass illiteracy should well demonstrate that this notion was false.

Yes, Farris says in the letter to this home-school Mom that he does not approve of compulsory attendance laws.   What he fails to inform this mother and those of us in Iowa, is that the vehi-cle to punish home-school parents who are not teaching their children – Iowa code 299A refers in the first paragraph (A.1), to the parents of “…a child of compulsory education age” as the ones held accountable by the civil authorities.  These are the laws that Michael Farris believes the state has a right to enforce against Christian home-school families and they are founded on the compulsory attendance law.  I can’t imagine it being different in any other state.

According to Ellwood P. Cubberley’s celebrated history Public Education in the United States (1919, revised 1934), “The history of compulsory attendance legislation in the states has been much the same everywhere, and everywhere laws have been enacted only after overcoming strenuous opposition.”  This is cited in Underground History of American Education, p. 101, by John Taylor Gatto.

The advent of the resultant “truancy” laws, which our Christian forefathers strenuously objected to, have contributed mightily to mass consumerism, untold debts, systemic rebellion to parents, adolescent adulthood, a sexually perverse society, broad illiteracy and worst of all – the near categorical loss of the true Christian faith.  Meanwhile, were the objections of our ancestors, who likely shared such Scriptural understanding, wrong?  One had best be careful asking this, out of fear that Michael Farris will boldly declare, “Yes, they were!”  After all, one of his former professors insists he heard Farris say in class once that St. Augustine is in hell.  If he can condemn St. Augustine, falsely judging our Christian ancestors who strongly objected to the government asserting authority into the training of their children should be a piece of cake.

Once home-school parents believe the false notion that the Bible grants the civil magistrate the authority to punish them for not educating their children, are they not easy pickings to be one of the 80,000+ who send Farris their $105 each year to ‘secure’ legal protection from the government? Again, I am not dismissing the sin where Christian parents of means willfully fail to educate their children, while knowing that education entails far more than teaching them how to read.  It is the civil magistrate’s trumped up authority, via’ Michael Farris, that is doing us so much harm.

Farris concluded his letter to this home-school Mom, “In summary, if you believe that it is necessary for HSLDA to argue that government can never punish those who do absolutely nothing for their children’s education, we are not the organization for you.”

Oh that it could be that simple. The problem is that Farris’ eisegesis does not conform to the Word of God.  Those Christians, who by faith in Jesus Christ want families truly free under God’s Law, should understand that HSLDA is not the organization for the cause of home-schooling.  We need to challenge this very public homeschool leader to stop his immensely profitable guilt manipulation and fear-mongering. 

His track record has been to ridicule and sometimes lie about (as he did regarding Constitutional law professor Dr. Charles Rice) those who challenge him. Let such a response only inspire you to challenge him even further.  Our ranks will grow as we strive to be faithful to God’s Word, and to the original Constitution.

Christos Kurios,
Paul Dorr
Rescue the Perishing · P.O. Box 115 · Ocheyedan, IA 51354 
Ph 712-758-3660 | Fx 712-758-3475 | e-mail rtp@iowatelecom.net

“Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O Lord, and teach out of Your law,…For the Lord will not cast off His people, Nor will He forsake His inheritance. But judgment will return to righteousness, And all the upright in heart will follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the Lord had been my help, My soul would soon have settled in silence.” Psalm 94:12,14-17

e

Should Women Hold Public Office?

Written By Pastor William Einwechter, Original Print Date Likely in the 1990s.
William O. Einwechter is a teaching elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church. He is a graduate of Washington Bible College (B.A.) and Capital Bible Seminary (Th.M.) and was ordained to the Gospel Ministry in 1982. He is the vice president of the National Reform Association and editor of the periodical “The Christian Statesman.” He is the author of “Ethics and God’s Law” and “English Bible Translations: By What Standard?” and editor of the book “Explicitly Christian Politics.” His writings have appeared in “The Christian Statesman,” “Chalcedon Report,” and “Patriarch.” He and his wife Linda are the parents of 10 children.

With more and more women entering the political sphere and running for political office, the conscientious, biblically oriented Christian is confronted with the question of whether or not he should give his support and vote for a woman. This question becomes more pressing for many when the “best candidate,” i.e., the most conservative, pro-life candidate in a particular race is a woman.

A number of years ago, we in Pennsylvania were confronted with this issue when an articulate, pro-life, politically conservative woman (who was also a wife and mother) ran for governor of our state. Many Christians enthusiastically supported her. But not all of us were confident that this was the right or consistent thing to do. The following essay grew out of the concern over her candidacy, and seeks to address the larger questions of the acceptability of women magistrates and the Christian’s responsibility before God in regard to supporting a woman for political office.

In approaching this matter, we need to first understand that these questions can only be answered from Scripture. Mere human opinion or reason is not sufficient for the Christian. The Word of God is the only infallible, authoritative standard for directing us into the paths of righteousness. Only the Bible has the power to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The duty of every true follower of Jesus Christ is to obey His commandments (John 14:15), and, in fact, the sign that we are really His disciples is that we continue in obedience to His Word (John 8:31; 1 John 2:3-5). So then, if we are to be faithful to Christ, we must search the Scriptures to see what the Lord says in regards to the issue of women civil rulers, and whether it is permissible for Christians to support a woman for the office of civil magistrate.

Second, we should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only?

I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere. There are four lines of evidence in the Bible that establish that women are not to hold political office. I will first set forth the biblical evidence that prohibits a woman from bearing rule, and, then, I will deal with the example of Deborah that is often cited as proof that it is permissible for a woman to hold public office.

1. The Biblical Doctrine of the Headship of Man Disqualifies a Woman for Civil Office.

The scriptural revelation of the creation of man and woman, and the scriptural commentary on their creation establishes the headship of the man over the woman. The text of Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 teaches us that man was made first, and then the woman was made to be man’s helper and companion. The Bible instructs us that this order of creation was by God’s design, and that it establishes the positional priority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership. In setting forth the authority of the man over the woman in the context of the local church, Paul appeals to the creation order saying, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

In another passage, Paul states the divinely ordained order of authority and headship: “But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Therefore, the Apostle Paul teaches that God has decreed that the order of authority be as follows: God-Christ-Man-Woman. Each one in this “chain of command” is under the headship (i.e., authority) of the one preceding him or her. Later on in this same text, Paul, as in 1 Timothy 2, calls upon the order of creation to show man’s headship over the woman.

He says, “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9). The Bible explicitly states that the man has headship over the woman, and that this headship is not based on cultural factors, or even the fall; rather, it is based on the created order established by God Himself.

Now it is also plain in the Bible that God has ordained that the order of the headship of man must be maintained in each governing institution set up by God. There are three primary institutions established by the Lord for the ordering of human affairs. These are the family, the church, and the state. Each of these institutions has authority to govern within its appointed sphere.

We could say, then, that there are three “governments” in the world: family government, church government, and state government. In each of these governments, God has commanded that men bear rule. The man has headship in the family (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and also by implication and command, in the state as well (1 Cor. 11:3; Ex. 18:21; see point 2 below).

Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church.

Now it is true that some attempt to do just that; but their denial of male headship for the family, church, and state is really a rejection of the Word of God and is a repudiation of God’s created order. And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.

2. The Biblical Qualifications for Civil Office Require Civil Leaders to Be Men.

Every time the Scripture speaks to the subject of the necessary qualifications for those who will bear rule in the civil sphere, it always speaks in terms of men and never in terms of women. This is significant, and based on point number 1 above, it is not hard to understand. The consistent assumption of Scripture is that men are to be the civil magistrates; and, as we have seen, this is not based on culture but upon the created order.

Since God is both Creator and Lawgiver there is never any contradiction between the created order and the law of God. And as creation establishes the headship of man in the civil sphere by means of man being created first and the woman being created for man, so the law of God sets the headship of man in the civil sphere by means of the stated qualifications for civil rulers.

God set forth the essential qualifications for civil magistrates for all people and for all time when He spoke through Jethro to Moses: “Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers…” (Ex. 18:21; emphasis added). And Moses himself said to the people as they were about to choose their civil magistrates, “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you” (Deut. 1:13; emphasis added). Importantly, the word for “men” chosen by the Holy Spirit in both of these texts is the Hebrew, gender specific word for a man, i.e., a male as opposed to a female.

Furthermore, the directions that God gives concerning the establishment of a king in Israel requires that a man, and not a woman, be chosen (Deut. 17:14-20). The king was to be a “brother,” and he was not to “multiply wives to himself.” Clearly, a man is in view here. The law of God commands us, therefore, to choose men to be our rulers! Likewise, in every other passage of Scripture dealing with the civil magistrate and his qualifications and duties, men are in view (2 Sam. 23:3; Neh. 7:2; Prov. 16:10; 20:8, 28; 29:14; 31:4-5; Rom. 13:1-6; etc.).

Therefore, the standard of God’s law that men be our civil rulers upholds the order of creation. God has spoken to us in His Word, and there He commands us to set men, not women, into positions of civil authority. To consider these texts (Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:13; 17:14-20) irrelevant in regards to what they say about setting men in civil office, would logically require us to consider the other qualifications listed as being of no account as well. The rejection of these Scriptures would leave us with no biblical standard for citizens in choosing their rulers. This may suit some, but for those who are the disciples of Jesus Christ and love the law of God, such a position is abhorrent.

3. The Biblical Picture of a Virtuous Woman Is Against a Woman Holding Civil Office.

In Proverbs 31:10-31, we are given the biblical picture of a woman who fears God and walks in His ways. The passage begins with a question: “Who can find a virtuous woman?” The question implies that such a woman is rare and precious, just like rubies. The description of the virtuous woman shows her to be an industrious, loving woman who devotes herself to the well-being of her husband and children. The center of her interest and the place of her ministry are in her home. God has called her to be “a keeper at home” (Titus 2:5), and she willingly and joyfully fulfills her calling to the great blessing of all who depend on her piety, wisdom, and homemaking skills.

Of great importance to the issue before us in this essay, are these words concerning her husband: “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land” (Prov. 31:23). The “gates” in Old Testament times referred to the place where the leaders of the city (i.e., “the elders of the land”) would gather to discuss community affairs, administer civil law, and judge in criminal and civil cases. The “gates,” therefore, is a reference to the “city hall,” the “capital building,” the “courthouse” or, in short, to the seat of civil government.

The key for us is to note that, in the case of the virtuous woman, it is her husband who is active in the gates; the virtuous woman is not herself seated in the gates — she is active in her home. This should not surprise us, for the order of creation and the law of God establish the fact that men are to bear rule in civil government. The virtuous woman understands this, and takes the vital place that God has assigned her in the home and with her family; she does not try to intrude herself into a seat in the gates.

However, we need to note that the virtuous woman’s works are to praised in the gates (Prov. 31:31). Her works are not in the gates, but they are to be praised in the gates; that is, those who are leaders in the community ought to recognize the great work that she is doing in support of the community by faithfully fulfilling her duties as a wife and mother (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:10, 14; Titus 2:3-5). This is her glorious work for the Lord and His kingdom. It is of the utmost importance!

Furthermore, it should be recognized that the virtuous woman does make her presence felt in community concerns. But it is through the influence that she has on her husband (and mature sons) that her wisdom and knowledge will help to direct the affairs of the community. Yes, it is her husband who sits in the gates, but his renown and ability as a civil leader is due, at least in part (if not largely), to her help and support. Yes, it is the husband who speaks and judges in the gates, but it is his wise and godly wife who is his chief counselor.

Let no one speak lightly or disparagingly of the woman’s appointed role and her service to Christ and His kingdom! And let no woman set aside the example of the virtuous woman and seek to sit in the gates with the rulers of the land. And let no Christian have any part in putting her there.

4. The Biblical Lament that “Women Rule over Them” Confirms the Error of a Woman Holding Civil Office.

In Isaiah 3:12, the prophet, as the representative of the Lord, laments the condition of the covenant nation saying: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them…” There is some debate as to the precise meaning of this verse. Some would contend that actual children and women were ruling, while others hold that this verse is teaching that those who were in authority were completely unqualified for such a position — as unqualified as women and children.

Whatever the exact connotations of this text are, one thing is clear: women ruling over men in the civil sphere is put in a very unfavorable light. The fact that Israel had women reigning over them is seen to be the result of sin and a part of God’s retributive justice; it is certainly not considered a blessing in this text! I believe that the most likely interpretation is that Israel had weak and incompetent leaders (cf. Isa. 3:4; Ecc. 10:16) who are being controlled by women.

Now if it is a sign of weakness for men who are civil rulers to be ruled by women, what is it but a sign of feebleness on the part of men to actually seek to have women rule over them? It is weakness and a sin because it is an abdication of their responsibility to be the leaders God has called them to be. No people ought to rejoice in women rulers for it is a sign of confusion and judgment. It is a sign that men have utterly failed to exercise the leadership required of them.

5. The Biblical Account of Deborah Does Not Imply that Women Should Hold Civil Office.

Those who believe that it is biblically permissible for women to hold civil office look to the account of Deborah (Judg. 4:1-5:31) for their main support. They must hope for support of their view in this account because there is no explicit teaching anywhere in the Bible that establishes the position that women should bear rule in the civil sphere. But does the account of Deborah in the book of Judges support their view? I believe that it does not, and I will seek to show that the example of Deborah is not of sufficient weight to overthrow the four-fold cord of evidence that has been weaved above.

First, in regard to the account of Deborah, recognize that it would be unwise to cancel out the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man, the clear statements of the law, the picture of the virtuous woman, and the lament over women ruling on the basis of what took place in Israel in one of the most confused periods in Israel’s history. We should remember the important admonition of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

We contend that the biblical teaching presented above speaks far more clearly to the issue of women magistrates than does the account of Deborah. It is a serious mistake of hermeneutics to use the story of Deborah to overthrow the positive precepts and principles of other Scriptures, and to establish it as the standard biblical text for determining the propriety of women rulers.

Second, the judges during this period were more military leaders or “avenging deliverers” than they were civil magistrates (cf. Judg. 2:16-19). Because of this fact, we must ask ourselves if we can even consider Deborah to be a “judge” in the same sense as the other judges in the book. The account of Deborah is unique in that she did not lead Israel into battle herself (as did the other judges in the book), but, rather, the Lord choose Barak to be the military commander. Would it not be more accurate to say that Barak was the true “judge” here (cf. Heb. 11:32 where Barak alone is mentioned), and that Deborah’s role was that of a “prophetess” who gave divine guidance to Israel?

Third, the Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel (Judg. 5:1-31). In verse 7, she claims to be a “mother” in Israel, not a father. This is significant, given the headship of the father in Israel, and it is in line with our suggestion that her role was one of support and guidance to the leaders of Israel as a prophetess. Additionally, verse 9 indicates that there were yet “governors” (literally, lawgivers, or leaders) in Israel. This would refer to the elders of the people and the rulers of the tribes.

This further supports the idea that the judge was not a civil magistrate in the usual sense, but rather a military leader and deliverer — Deborah was neither a “judge” nor a magistrate. Also, in verse 12 of the song, Deborah is exhorted to awake and sing, but Barak is exhorted to arise and “lead,” indicating that Barak is the military leader. Additionally, the “dominion over the mighty” in verse 13 is either a reference to Israel’s victory over Sisera and the Canaanites, or to the gathering of the people to go up to battle; whichever, it does not mean that God has appointed Deborah to the position of civil magistrate.

There is no question that Deborah was a great and godly woman who had considerable influence in Israel. But in the light of the evidence it is highly questionable to build a doctrine of women rulers from the case of Deborah. Deborah’s role in Israel was that of a “prophetess,” but not that of a civil ruler or military leader. The text does not support the idea that she was a civil magistrate. She “judged” Israel (Judg. 4:4) only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God. Apparently the priests and Levites were so corrupt that the people had to seek wisdom and judgment from this godly woman. But let us not seek in Deborah a doctrine of women rulers, and thereby become guilty of setting aside the definite precepts and commandments of God which forbid women magistrates.

Conclusion
In view of the biblical evidence presented above, it can be concluded that women ought not to be civil leaders; only men have been called of God to exercise rule in the civil sphere. For those who believe in the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, how can there be any other verdict than this? To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man, reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God, ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman, and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men.

The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. It is imperative that Christians labor to restore God’s order for the family, the church, and the state. If we violate God’s order in any way or in any sphere, we will have confusion and will invite God’s judgment on us. God forbid that we would ever be so foolish.

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Isaiah 3:12