In the beginning:
When God planned and created the world, He became the creator. Since that time, God has revealed this truth about himself and often done so within a covenant. But God is the creator whether he chooses to reveal it or not. His status as such does not dependent upon a covenant or a statute.
This also applies to the way that God chose to create people. We are told that when God made Man in his own image, (both male and female) he created the man first. After a time, He created a woman. The apostle Paul explains that He did this deliberately, intending for the man to serve as head of the woman and that this arrangement should pertain to all of their descendants. Biblical covenants reflect what God put in place from the beginning and the relationships of men and women in the Bible accepted it as the normal course of human life.
But the principle itself is not covenant-dependent. Embedded in creation, it precedes all covenants and applies within each. It did not arrive with the covenant promises that God made to Noah or to Abraham. It was not instituted at Mt Sinai or removed on Pentecost. It has been in place from the beginning of Man and put there by the mind of God. Covenants notwithstanding, as long as men and women remain on earth, God’s order of creation and this principle based upon it – remains.
The apostle Paul points to a similar relationship between God’s promise to Abraham and HIs covenant with Israel. In Galatians 3:17, he wrote: “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise”. Likewise, the relationship between men and women – put in place by God at creation, has not been invalidated by the later arrival of any covenant.
When the New Testament writers point back to God’s design in the context of male-female roles, they argue from continuity, to say in effect…nothing has changed. Paul does this in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-12 and again in 1 Tim 2:11-14.
There are two kinds of arguments whose conclusion is: in the New Testament church, there is now no distinction in the roles that men and women fulfill.
- Those who think that male headship was established by statutes, feel justified to argue that the arrival of a new covenant with new statutes, has changed the relationship between men and women. Doug Burleson’s article includes a response to this approach and we encourage you to read it.
- Others agree that nothing has changed, remaining convinced that women have from ancient times held spiritual leadership roles of which God approved and think that they see these again in the New Testament.
This article directs attention to the argument from continuity which relies heavily upon three specific instances in the Old Testament when women prophesied and are referred to as prophetesses. As we do, we should ask, what significance do the O.T. writers attach to this activity relative to the relationship between men and women?
It is worth noting that none of the New Testament writers cite them in connection with this subject or appeal to them to advance a line of reasoning.
A matter of contrast:
Beginning with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, spiritual gifts were distributed to both men and women in the church. What the prophet Joel promised (Joel 2:28-29), came to pass in Acts 2:17-21. Knowing this, we are not surprised to find four prophetesses living under the same roof in the home of Philip the evangelist. Throughout the New Testament, the expectation is that there was a time and place for the proper exercise of each spiritual gift received by women, including the gift of prophecy. The presence of this gift in no way required women to overstep the boundaries set by God for its use.
What may surprise us, is to realise that Philip’s daughters outnumber all of the prophetesses named in the entire Old Testament. There are only three who made widely scattered appearances over a period of about 800 years. So it is the virtual absence of women filling this role – that creates our first impression. They stand out primarily because they are rare.
As we consider each, we should ask: did any of these women:
- Serve as the head of their family, their clan or tribe?
- Function as a priest or a Levite , offering sacrifices at the tabernacle or temple?
- Act as a religious officiant at a public worship attended both by men and women – by interceding in prayer on behalf of the assembly or delivering a sermon?
- Did they do anything at all in their roles as prophetesses that violates male headship or spiritual leadership? Or was this principle present and operating, even during the worst days of israel’s rebellion against God?
Miriam:
Miriam, the sister of Aaron and older sister to Moses is the first one mentioned. She appears in the role of a prophetesses following the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 15:20-21. What she did took place in the context of God’s victory over the chariots of Egypt and follows on the heels of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Ex. 15:1b-18) which Moses and the sons of Israel sang to the Lord.
Then Moses wrote:
“Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took the tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and with dancing. And Miriam answered them, “Sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted; The horse and his rider He has hurled into the sea.”
It may have been that the women whom she led, sang antiphonally – responding to the deeds recounted in the longer song. But at any rate, Miriam, in her role as a prophetess, led the women in song, praising God.
Instead of asking “what do we make of that?”, let’s ask instead: “what did Miriam make of it? What conclusions did she draw from that experience?
Numbers 12:1-15 gives us a clue. Moses begins the story this way:
“Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); and they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?”
Miriam is named before her brother Aaron (the high priest) seeming to indicate that she led this challenge to Moses’ authority. In this face to face confrontation, she implied that her prophetic experience qualified her for a bigger share of leadership and implied that Moses had ‘gotten too big for his britches’ (or robe). The text goes on to say that Moses was too meek to respond. He was about as non-confrontational as could be.
These two forces often set the stage for departures from what God has put in place. When faulty reasoning and personal ambition challenge the authority instituted by God, and are met by weak leadership, God’s will is often sacrificed in the name of peace.
Moses knew he was right. He knew that God had chosen him to lead. He had not wanted the job but had agreed to become God’s man. He was neither self-appointed, nor in it for himself. He was the first to admit that he needed help, pleading with God to distribute the burden of leadership among other men.
Miriam the prophetess tried to make too much of too little, while Moses, the covenant giver did just the opposite. By failing to act as a leader, he encouraged what turned out to be a series of challenges to his authority which in turn resulted in the death of thousands. (See the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 leaders – Numbers 16:1-40 and then the rebellion of Israel Num. 16:41-50 and the plague that followed).
Miriam and Aaron lit the spark.
God saw what was happening and immediately stepped in. He rebuked Miriam and Aaron in no uncertain terms and struck Miriam with leprosy. When Moses intervened, asking God to heal her, God reminded Moses of her place within her father’s house. She was subject to her father’s authority and had he but spit in her face (presumably for challenging his authority) she would bear her shame for a week. How much more, having challenged God’s authority and demanded leadership that was not hers, should she not bear her shame? Miriam spent a week in isolation during which the entire nation was kept from moving toward the land of promise. God’s public rebuke is impossible to miss and sets an abiding precedent.
A reasonable ‘take-away’ from this story is that no one should ever presume to demand a leadership role among God’s people for which He has not chosen them. It should also serve as a warning against drawing unwarranted conclusions from insufficient evidence. What Miriam thought was the ‘tip of the iceberg’ was the whole berg. In her ambition, she reasoned from an inference which led her to an entirely wrong conclusion. It could have been fatal, as it was, the very next time that this kind of reasoning resurfaced (in Numbers 16:3).
Deborah: Judges 4:1-10.
We are introduced to three things about Deborah in verse 4. She was a woman who prophesied…a prophetess. As the wife of Lappidoth, she belonged in his family. And she was judging Israel (in the region of Naphtali and Zebulun) in the sense that people came to her to have their disputes settled.
During this lawless period of Israel’s history, the term ‘judge’ is used in several ways. Most often it refers to a deliverer, called by God to throw off some foreign oppressor. Some of those who served in this capacity went to act as local leaders with varying results.
In this case, Deborah’s activity is what is described. She was helping to settle legal disputes. In that sense, she was civil leader and filling a niche evidently left vacant by local elders who ordinarily made up the courts (Dt. 19:12, 21:3-6, 22:15-18, Josh 20:4 etc.). There are other Old Testament references to women who were ‘wise’ and people came to them for advice and counsel (2 Sam 14:2, 20:16-22). We are not told, but Deborah may also have been a ‘wise woman’ who had gained a wider reputation.
Deborah’s involvement in military deliverance is more connected with her role as a prophetess than with her court activities. God instructed her to send for Barak. The Lord was ready to deliver Israel from the armies of Sisera and had instructions for Deborah to pass on. When he heard them, Barak was willing to go to war provided that Deborah accompany him. We don’t know if he did not believe the message or had little trust in a prophet with no ‘skin in the game’.
Deborah’s response is instructive. She said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.
This too was from God and intended as a rebuke. Deborah and Barak were both aware of how ‘far from ordinary’ this was. That a man should refuse to ‘man up’ when called by God is bad enough. But to hide behind a woman…to rely on her for courage was disreputable. It was something that should not be. To make his displeasure crystal clear, God declared that when the fighting was over, the honour for victory would go to a woman and not to a man nor to Barak.
We should certainly never minimize Deborah’s role in Israel’s deliverance. As a prophetess she faithfully relayed all that God said. But relative to our larger discussion, we should also not make more of this story than what is contains.
God’s prophetic role for Deborah pertained to military deliverance and not spiritual leadership. Like a number of New Testament prophets, her message was informational, (See Acts 11:28, 21:9-11) rather than doctrinal or spiritual. God’s communication with the nation-state of Israel certainly included a range of subject matter quite beyond what we find addressed by N.T. prophets. But we have no evidence that Deborah acted a religious leader or presumed to be head of her household.
Huldah : 2 Kings 22
Like Deborah, we encounter Huldah at another low point in Israel’s history. After Hezekiah’s reforms, Manasseh and Amon plunged Israel back into idolatry, killed the prophets of God and provoked the Lord to anger. He was on the cusp of destroying Judah and sending those who remained into Babylonian captivity. But God delayed when Josiah revived efforts to restore the temple and bring Judah back to Him.
During temple renovations, a copy of God’s law was found. When it was read to Josiah, he tore his clothes and humbled himself before God. The book warned about punishment and exile. Josiah knew that Israel was long gone into Assyrian captivity and he wanted to know how much time was left before Judah followed suit. So he sent Hilkiah the high priest along with a delegation of the king’s servants to ‘inquire of the Lord’.
It is at this point that we are introduced to Huldah the prophetess as the wife of Shallum. She is the one to whom they went. We are not told why they chose her instead of Zephaniah, Jeremiah or another prophet. But it does seem that she was close by, known through family connections to the royal court and time was of the essence.
When consulted, Huldah verified the authenticity of the book and that the destruction of Jerusalem was immanent. She explained that Judah had provoked God’s anger by abandoning Him to worship idols. But she added a message of encouragement for Josiah. God would delay the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah until after Josiah died.
The Biblical record passes over this account without further comment. No one was shocked that God had spoken through a woman in what appears to be a private setting. The delegation that interviewed her did not interrupted her when she was preaching at the temple or offering sacrifices at the altar. She is not listed as the head of her household. Following this event, families were not reorganized, the priesthood was not reformed and the Levites were not out of a job.
Conclusions
Let us give credit where credit is due. Though Miriam overstepped God’s boundaries, her usefulness to God and to Israel should not be overlooked. Deborah and Huldah served faithfully and well, perhaps warned by what happened to Miriam. They did what God called them to do without challenging His order for the family or the spiritual leadership of His people. Three remarkable women, yet their work set no new precedent, or, signal the end of that which by God’s design had been in place ‘from the beginning’.
Making too much of too little, really is too much.
Barrie ON