The Women

by Eric Svendsen
At the very core of the disagreement between Christian feminists and traditionalists is the issue of cultural relativity. Christian feminists see many of the statements in the New Testament that seem to limit the ministry of women as culturally conditioned. Since in the first-century world women were seen as second class citizens, Paul, eager to diffuse unwarranted persecution by the surrounding culture and to make the gospel attractive, naturally disallowed ministries to women that would offend outsiders. The guiding principle, it is argued, is evangelism. Since in today's world the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and women now have the same rights and opportunities as men, the church should (for the sake of the gospel) adjust to its surrounding culture and give women equal opportunity in leadership positions.

This argument, it seems to me, is flawed on a number of points. First, there is nothing in any of the major passages which deal with the limitation of ministry for women to suggest that the guiding principle is evangelism. Paul always states his reasons for the limitations and not once does he refer to the surrounding culture as the basis for his reasoning.

Second, even if there were such an allusion to the gospel as the reason behind Paul's decision to limit the role of women in the church, it does not thereby follow that the limi~tation is culturally relative. There could very well be a "kingdom culture" of sorts wrapped up in the gospel message itself that would transcend all other cultures. So, even if Christian feminists are successful in demonstrating that the gospel is at the heart of Paul's decision, it proves very little.

Third, since Paul never once unambiguously points to either the gospel or the surrounding culture as the reason for his limitations on the role of women, it is highly presumptuous to label his statements about the role of women as culturally relative. To argue convincingly that Paul's statements about women are culturally relative, one must first show a biblical precedent to that effect. Indeed, one must first show that there is, in fact, such a thing as cultural relativity when it comes to direct commands and mandates for God's people.

This precedent cannot come from the New Testament since there is no inspired writing after the New Testament to confirm that the command had legitimately become null and void. The only place we can look for such a precedent is the Old Testament. If there can be found in the Old Testament a command given under the Mosaic covenant that legitimately ceased to be operative at any point before that covenant was superceded by the New Covenant (that is to say, one that God himself abolished), then that would pave the way for arguing that perhaps there are commands given under the New Covenant that God himself abolished because they ceased to be relevant. Is there such a precedent? Or does the evidence point to the contrary?

In Deut 4:2 Moses warned the people against supplementing or disregarding the commands that he had given them. He said, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." Everything found in Moses' writings from Exodus to Deuteronomy was to be adhered to stringently until God officially said otherwise. At least that is what we would have to assume. Or, do we? Are we to believe that Moses intended his commands to be obeyed thousands of years after he died? Most conservative scholars date Moses' writings around 1450 B.C. Isn't it just possible that Moses' writings were for his era only and that much of what he commanded reflected a cultural bias? May we safely assume that Old Testament characters hundreds of years later would have recognized that Moses intended for them to adjust their practices to the surrounding changing culture? Let's see.

King David, perhaps the most beloved king of Israel in all of the Old Testament, was described as a man after God's own heart. He had nothing but the best intentions when he decided to move the ark of God to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, he did not transport the ark the way Moses had commanded it be transported. The law required that the ark be carried on the shoulders of a specific family of Levites called the Kohathites (Ex 25:12-14; Nu 4:15). David, disregarding the command, decided instead to follow the example of the Philistines, who had previously transported it on a cart. One can almost hear the egalitarians of David's day rationalize: "Well, yes, it's true that Moses commanded the ark to be carried a specific way and by a specific class of people; but that was 500 years ago, at a time when people discriminated on the basis of class and family lineage and were hung up on meticulous procedures. We don't do that today, so it'll probably be all right to carry the ark on this cart. After all, we are a more technologically advanced people. It is more practical to use a cart than to force people to carry this thing on their shoulders. Besides, the Philistines did it this way, and we don't want to appear to be behind the times."

Tragically, David miscalculated the consequences of "subtracting from" Moses' words. When the cart began to tip, Uzzah tried to steady the ark with his hand and was killed by God (2 Sam 6:1-7). The next time David moved the ark he was very careful to follow Moses' instructions to the letter. This is recorded for us in 1 Chr 15:2, "No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord." A few verses later, David admitted, "it was because you, the Levites, did not bring [the ark] up the first time that the Lord our God broke out in anger against us. We did not inquire of him about how to do it in the prescribed way."

In the spirit of king David, king Asa was another one of Judah's godly kings. The Scripture says that he "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father David had done." In fact, the only complaint against him is that he "did not remove the high places." These were shrines and alters that were set up by Canaanites who worshipped Baal, and that had been taken over by the Israelites for worship of Yahweh. The law prescribed that alters were to be built only at divinely sanctioned places (Ex 20:24; Deut 12:5,8,13-14) and the use of pagan-built alters was strictly forbidden (Nu 33:52; Deut 7:5, 12:3). Violation of these commandments occurred almost immediately upon entering the promised land. Apparently, by Asa's time, the "high places" were so commonly used that they were no longer seen as a violation of Scripture (see also 1 Kings 3:2-3). In other words, the commandments were viewed culturally, not absolutely. They no longer saw anything wrong with violating this particular command because it had been violated for so long.

The first king to realize that worshipping at the "high places" was wrong was king Josiah. When he read the "book of the covenant" (2 Kings 23:1-3) he renewed his dedication to the covenant. This entailed the destruction of all the "high places"--which he was more than happy to do (23:8,13,15). Josiah's legacy is that "neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he did--with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the law of Moses." Does it sound as though the writer of these words believed in cultural relativity when interpreting what commands of God should be obeyed?

Unlike Asa and Josiah, an example of a king who took it upon himself to do things his own way was Jeroboam. 1 Kings 12:31 records that Jeroboam "appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites." God expressly commanded Moses that the priesthood would be from the tribe of Levi (Num 3:5-13). Again, one can imagine Jeroboam's reasoning processes: "The rule that only Levites can become priests is outdated and stifling, nothing more than the product of a Levite-dominated society. Surely God did not intend that only one class of people could serve him in that capacity. After all, the Levites are not inherently superior to anyone else. We are all equal in the eyes of God and we shouldn't limit the ministry of someone simply on the basis of what family he comes from. Why, just look at all the other religions around us. None of them limits the priesthood to one family. Obviously, Moses' command is culturally relative and was meant to accomodate a Levite-dominated society." Sound familiar?

This wasn't Jeroboam's only mistake. The Scripture further records that he chose his own month to institute a festival (1 Kings 12:33). Whereas David had "subtracted from" Moses' words, Jeroboam had "added to" them. This flippancy on the part of Jeroboam led to his demise, and the sins he committed did not go without scriptural commentary. In 1 Kings 13:33-34 the Scripture calls Jeroboam's practice of appointing priests from all sorts of people "evil," and the very thing that "led to his downfall."

One last noteworthy example is that of Nehemiah. In chapter 13 Nehemiah discovers that the law of Moses excluded Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly of God's people. The reason for the exclusion is significant. During Moses' time, while the Israelites were on their way to Canaan, the Ammonites and Moabites did not accommodate them in their land and, instead, hired the prophet Balaam to call down curses on them. Now, here's the point. Nehemiah lived at about 450 B.C. The command given by Moses to exclude Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly was issued 1000 years prior. In addition, the command seems to be culturally conditioned, or at least limited to a specific time period. Indeed, how could any rational, sensitive person think that God would hold a grudge against an entire people for something their ancestors did over 1000 years earlier! Surely God meant to exclude only those Ammonites and Moabites who actually participated in the Balaam episode. No responsible interpreter of Scripture would ever come to the conclusion that God intended this command to be binding 1000 years later! Oh? Nehemiah records that when the people heard this command, "they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent" (Neh 13:3).

Well, how does all of this relate to the issue of the role of women in the church? Simply put, there is no precedent in Scripture for considering any command culturally relative. Indeed, we have nothing but counter examples in the Old Testament. The entire law of Moses was completely and unequivocally binding on God's people right up until Jesus superseded it. In fact, Jesus' own words confirm this in such passages as Mt 5:17-20 ("I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished"). Paul reiterates this in Ga 3:19 where he says that the law was added "until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Since Christ himself was "born under the law" (Ga 4:4) he had to obey the law perfectly in order to live a sinless life and redeem us. Therefore Christ is the "end of the law" (Ro 10:4) for those who believe. All of this serves to illustrate the binding nature of the old covenant upon God's people until the time of Christ. It was binding upon God's people whether they recognized it or not.

We must not miss the lesson that Scripture so clearly lays out before us. Commands from God are not subject to "viewer discretion." There is nothing in Scripture that beckons us to sift through commands to see whether or not we should obey them. The whole idea of cultural relativity is nothing more than a human invention that is foreign to Scripture.

Moreover, cultural relativity is a slippery slope upon which it is difficult to maintain grounds for any biblical injunction. If on the basis of cultural relativity we choose to disregard commands of Scripture that limit the ministry of women, what is to stop us from limiting the ministry of, say, homosexuals? After all, when the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual practices, isn't it because the writers are reflecting their own primitive cultural bias? We in the twentieth-century are better informed about homosexuals than were the first-century writers. Paul, of course, although pro-homosexual, knew that the surrounding culture frowned upon the practice and so disallowed it in the first-century church. Were he alive today, he clearly would take the position that since homosexuality is now considered an "alternative lifestyle," we as the church should adapt to societal norms and allow homosexuals to exercise their ministries--indeed, we should be at the very forefront of the cause to liberate them. It is, after all, the gospel message that is important here. If it hinders the gospel, we shouldn't do it. But if it advances the gospel, then we should allow homosexuals to hold leadership positions in the church.

Allowing women a carte blanche type of ministry in the church is a popular stance to have these days. Any opposing view is thought to be primitive, uninformed, and culturally insensitive. Josiah took a culturally unpopular position on the "high places" in his day and the Scripture praises him for it. He could have succumbed to societal pressures and allowed the high places to stand, but, significantly, he didn't.

The only precedent that we have from Scripture is to hold on to what we received from the apostles (1 Cor 11:2). Any time a commandment in the Old Testament was thought by some Old Testament character to be outdated, that person was wrong. All the commands given by Moses were fully in force until God established a new covenant through the coming of Christ. That is our precedent. Only when we receive a new covenant from God will we be safely in a position to reevaluate commands concerning the role of women in the church.