In this message, William Einwechter defends biblical womanhood against the ever-encroaching heresy of feminism. He explains that feminism is one of the most destructive ideologies in that it has helped to pave the way for abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda and has subverted our families and undermined our churches. 

The following message, the creation order, what about Deborah the Judge, was given by Bill Einwector at the Regional Uniting Church and Family Conference in Wake Forest, North Carolina in 2008. The question we're discussing here is closely related to the heresy, chosen word, heresy of feminism, which is one of the most destructive ideologies of the past 50 years and perhaps more. The doctrines of feminism have transformed our culture and helped pave the way for abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, it's undermined our churches and subverted the family. You see, feminism has a radical agenda, and it's aimed at overturning any existing aspects of Christian culture in America. Its hatred of Christian culture is centered on the biblical teaching of the role relationship between men and women.

And I have found that nothing enrages a feminist, be they a man or a woman with that perspective, nothing enrages them more than the biblical doctrine of male headship. To them this doctrine is the ultimate heresy. And feminism and those who have been influenced by it advocate an egalitarian approach where men and women are touted as being equal in all respects, except in the most obvious physical differences and that they're equally fit to serve in any occupation or fill any office or position of leadership in any realm. Now we who are conservative Christians and take the Bible for our standard and practice do reject feminist dogma and the egalitarianism of its position. And we do believe that men and women have separate God-ordained roles.

So what have we done? We have labored to maintain the doctrine of male headship in the family, in the church, and in the church against feminists and against evangelicals who advocate a feminist-inspired egalitarianism. But are we being consistent in our approach to male headship? Of course, This lecture's coming on the back of an extensive one I just gave on this very subject. But I'm tying that in to right now what we're talking about.

And we're taking up one aspect of that perspective on the creation order. And I'm asking you, have we faithfully applied the biblical teaching on the creation order concerning men and women as far as we need to. And specifically as far as we need to to meet the challenge of modern-day egalitarianism and be true to God and His word. And I answer that we haven't. I'm talking about conservative Christians now.

By way of review, as we've recently just discussed in our last message, God has ordained three fundamental institutions for the governing of his world and the ordering of human society. These are so important, these simple things. In fact, on the back of your notes there, and we'll refer to this a little bit later, we have a chart here. We're trying to visualize for you how God has ordered the world. And we refer to this as a covenantal institution.

That means it is established by means of covenant and it carries with it all the aspects of a biblical covenant. And the aspects of a biblical covenant we're setting there on the left-hand column. Transcendence that refers to God's sovereignty. Hierarchy that is refers to delegate ethics, refers to standards and righteousness or God's law. Then we have what's called oath and sanctions or the blessings and cursings and then we have succession.

There's a historical continuity to God's covenants and the family the church in the state are three covenantal institutions and spheres of government And when we look at the issue of egalitarianism, we look at the egalitarianism, the roles of men and women, we're simply saying that they need to be worked out in terms of all three governing spheres of life. All three are based on the creation order. All three are under the meditarial kingship of Jesus Christ. And we need to apply the principles of the roles of men and women to all spheres. And the discussion in this hour, the teaching in this hour, deals with the institution of the state or the civil government.

Now again, some may have said, but say something like this. Women serving in civil office is such a part of American politics, why bother with the subject? Aren't there more important battles to fight? And I would answer that question yes and no. And in regard to the no, I would argue that the subject of women magistrates is part of the larger battle against feminism and egalitarianism that's destroying this country and our churches and our families.

Would anyone here who believes in the full authority of scripture want to make that same argument in regard to egalitarianism in the family and the church. Bill, why bother with talking about getting the family in order? I mean, in America today, these things have been jettisoned. Aren't there more important battles to fight? Or we could say that about the church.

I don't think you would want to say that. I'm suggesting we shouldn't be saying it about the civil sphere either. The issue of women bearing rule in the civil sphere is important in the larger battle against rampant egalitarianism. You see, feminists and egalitarians are rigorously consistent. Using that chart, they would say that the standard supply of egalitarianism in all spheres, do they not?

This is part of the power of their movement and their position because of the logical consistency of it. It's error, but it's logically consistent error. Furthermore, And maybe this will give a little bit more understanding of what I'm saying. The acceptance of the rightness or the propriety of women ruling in the civil sphere helps prepare the way for the acceptance of women ruling in other spheres. If a woman can govern a county, a state, a city, a nation, surely if we're going to be logical, they can govern a church or a family.

If they can serve as judges in civil courts, certainly they can serve as a judge in church courts. And if you look at the rise of women's liberation and egalitarianism in the history, it began its ascent into American culture where, in the beginning, where did it strike first? The civil sphere. And from that sphere, it began to spread its tentacles into the realms of the family and in the church. But it was the notion of the fact that a woman is permitted to exercise authority in the civil sphere.

This goes back to the suffrage movement, the women's suffrage movement back in the 1800s, and the rise of that feminist perspective that was behind it. Some of it was tempered by the culture of the day and some biblical outlooks, but the roots of feminism were there. As long as Christians who look to the Bible as their final standard in all matters of doctrine and life refuse to address this subject, I say that so long we will continue to undermine our efforts to establish the biblical order in all spheres of life. I think we saw that, this is my opinion, we saw that tragically in the Sarah Palin situation. We had good men who surrendered the biblical family for politics.

Even if we don't get into the issue of whether or not it's biblically proper for a woman to serve as a civil ruler and just look at the issue of what is the role of a wife and mother. These good men surrendered that position. I have a whole pile of articles written by various columnists and commentators about this, pointing out the inconsistency and saying something like, these men like James Dobson and so forth, I'm not picking on him, that's one of the names on mine, have lost their moral credibility to speak against feminism, to speak against career women in that type of a situation. And where did the compromise come? Where has the foundation been weakened?

It was through the acceptance of this principle. This is an important issue because it's part of a larger battle. It's part of a whole. And we cannot neglect this. And if we do, we're going to undermine all of our efforts.

And those who are thinking will see the hypocrisy of the position. Maybe hypocrisy is not a good word because hypocrisy is when we deliberately act against our principles, but a better word is inconsistency of the position. And you know who's really good at feeling out inconsistencies? The younger generation. As they look at those who are older than them, those who are their parents, the church, and this and that.

They pick up inconsistencies really quickly, at least my children do. And they will take those inconsistencies and allow that to be the means of undermining the teaching that is given in other areas. And so this is an important issue, just for that reason alone. There's another reason why it's important is that the Bible speaks to the issue. To me, anything the Bible speaks to is important.

Why? Because God thought it was important enough to inspire and to put into his word. And the Bible speaks to this issue. And so it has my attention. I hope it has yours.

And it speaks to this issue in two specific ways. The role relationship of men and women according to creation order and the specific biblical teaching concerning the qualifications for a civil ruler. The Bible has standards that are to be followed by those who choose their civil rulers. In America, this is done by voters, by you and I. And this makes the subject before us a very practical one.

Should you or I vote for a woman or support a woman to serve in a civil office? It faces you all the time. And therefore, it's important, because you and I will give account on the day of judgment, not only for every idle word we have spoken, but every vote we have cast in the name of God, for his glory. So I didn't vote in that way, I wasn't thinking that. Well, you should be thinking that because whatever you do in thought, word, and deed, do what?

All to the glory of God. And so if you're going to take that privilege of voting, you need to do it to the glory of God, or you don't do it at all. Which I'm not suggesting not doing it as to the glory of God. But it's better not to do it at all than not to do it to the glory of God. And the Bible speaks to this matter.

And so when we enter the voting booth to cast our votes and many ladies, many women are on the ballots, we have a question before us and that concerns is this to the glory of God? Is this according to his will? We need to look to the Bible to determine that. Let me ask you a related question here before I proceed on this. And what is your theory of knowledge?

It's called the study of epistemology. It's to know the nature and the limits of human knowledge, how we achieve that knowledge. How do you know that what you know is true? How do you justify your knowledge? How do you know the world is round?

Is it round? How do you know anything? Now, I'm not talking about opinions. I'm not talking about hypotheses. I'm not talking about theories.

We have a lot of those. How do we know anything to be true? Well, the scripture teaches us, and this was the whole point of the introductory section of our previous talk, is that God determines the meaning, in fact, of everything because he is the creator. He interprets everything, and that means he assigns its meaning. And truly, we can only know something if our knowledge is based on God's interpretation of reality.

Some of that is direct. That is, the scripture just specifically speaks to it. Others has to be deduced from doctrines. But unless we can justify our knowledge, By the way, that's what knowledge is, defined as by philosophers, a justified true belief. It's not an opinion.

It's a justified true belief. So here's the question. When you go into the voting booth, how do you know it's right to vote for a woman? How do you know it's wrong? Justify that for me from the only source of knowledge.

Now, of course, if we don't agree on the presupposition that the Bible is the ultimate source of God's interpretation of the world and reality and so forth, then we will come to different conclusions. That's why the battle is often fought on that level. And if you don't share my presuppositions on this, you probably won't share the conclusions of this talk that we're giving today on women magistrates. But the Bible speaks to this issue. And it is my belief that if I submit myself to God's interpretation of the matter of voting, and it's not just about women, but also about men, what kind of character they should have, what kind of men I should go through.

If I don't submit to that, I can know my thesis. I can know nothing about what is a righteous vote. But when I look to the Word of God and look to the Scripture where God assigns meaning and interprets that action of voting, I can come to a true knowledge of what my Father's will is and act upon it. Oh yeah, there are matters of interpretation that need to be wrestled with here. And a lot of people, when we talk about this, have particular theological constructs about the authority of the Old Testament, and that was Old Testament Israel and all that, and I wish I could spend a whole time talking about those matters.

But unless we look to the revelation of God in the Old Testament concerning the qualification of a civil ruler, then we have no revelation from God on that, and we cannot know what is righteous. And that means God doesn't really care. Because he hasn't chosen, to New Testament Christians, doesn't matter. God has given us his word, and he speaks to this issue of the qualifications for a magistrate and whether or not a woman meets those qualifications. Jesus says, if you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed.

And I would say as an American citizen, I am continuing, I'm his disciple indeed as a voter when I continue in his word. And I think the Bible speaks to the issue. The third reason why this is important is the current circumstances of more and more women going into politics. Here in America we have more ladies serving in political office than ever before in our history. According to the data of the Center for American Women in Politics, and this is prior to the 2008 election, this was actually information I derived this summer from their website.

Over 20% of all political offices in America are held by women. In 1979, that number was under 10%. So in the last 30 years or so, we have doubled. And the trend is only more and more in that direction. And so this is a circumstance that we can not ignore.

We have to look at it. We have to think about it biblically. I want to think of all things through in terms of the scriptures. And I want to think this is a circumstance that's happening. What does it mean?

What should I decide from this? And so what I'd like to do briefly in the time that remains is answer the specific question, is it biblically proper for a woman to serve as a civil ruler, civil magistrate and thus rule over men in the civil sphere? And the answer that I give is no, as you know, and the reasons I give are given in your outline there and there are five points on this. Four specific reasons and one dealing with a challenge. Number one, the biblical doctrine of male headship applies to each governing institution.

It's part of the creation order, and scripture sets that out as applying to all life. Number two, the biblical qualifications for a civil ruler forbids or disqualifies a woman or a female from serving in that position. Number three, the biblical role of the woman is against this, it's against female magistrates. And number four, the biblical lament, which we find in Isaiah 3.12, of women ruling over men is also against the concept and against the principle of women magistrates. And then we need to look at the time that remains at the biblical example of Deborah, which is used as an endorsement of the concept.

So How can I cover this in this short time? Well, let me just briefly look at each one. God is a God of order. He governs the whole creation according to a sovereign will, and that will is revealed in his word. There is no confusion in the divine government, None.

God with his wisdom is not the god of confusion. He's the god of order. And if we are to govern our churches with order, God governs his world with order. He doesn't put contradictory principles into play. And his delegation of authority to men to rule in these spheres does not bring any conflicts.

Such is the conflict that might arise if we had women serving as elders in the church. And she and her husband are members of the church. In the home, she is to submit to his authority, but in the church, she is to submit to his. The word and teaches him in the church, she washes him by the word of the word and teaches him. When she is in the home, she should submit to his counsel and direction, but when she's in the church, he should submit to his counsel and direction.

Do you see any conflict or confusion there? Is it just me? I think you see what I'm saying. God is a God of order. And he establishes this order according to his wisdom and purpose.

It does not mean that the man, because he's in headship, is better than the woman. This is not of that nature at all. We cannot define things. What standard do you say that? What we need to say is not that this is indicating the man is better than the woman.

This is God's will. And that means it's good for both men and women. And the Bible upholds the glory and the power and wonder of the woman and her ministry and service in the world. I mean, I don't know where we would be without godly women. I don't know where I would be.

And the Bible exalts the woman as precious, as central to his dominion plan for the world, indispensable. So let no one say that the doctrine of male headship in the Bible denigrates the woman. It exalts her as a woman. Feminism denigrates a woman, because it says to be a woman, as the Bible defines, is to tread you down. You need to take on manly characteristics, manly emotions, manly functions.

Basically, they've said that womanhood's not that important. I believe it is absolutely critical. The Kingdom of God cannot go forward, and it will not go forward till the women of God be the women God called them to be, are the women God called them to be. Now if you look at that chart again, the doctrine of male headship applying to each governing institution. Transcendence means God is sovereign.

He is sovereign over a family. He is sovereign over the church. He is sovereign over the state. He is the king of the nations. He is the ruler, the princes of the earth.

He is transcendent over all spheres of government. We look at the hierarchy section, which is the point that we're really talking about here. We all are to submit in the family church and the civil society to the lordship of Jesus Christ. Philippians 2-10, that he obeyed the Lord, he became a servant, he obeyed and became a servant even to the point of the cross. God has therefore highly exalted him.

When did he do that? The Ascension, Resurrection, Ascension. Given him a name that's above every name, and it's the name of master and lord and sovereign, so that every need, not at the day of judgment, certainly will happen then. And men who have rebelled will do that at that day. But ethically, all men are required right now, Philippians 2 10, to confess that Christ is Lord of the glory of the Father.

And that means the President of the United States should be doing that. I don't expect him to do it. In fact, he's saying other things. But that's what he's supposed to do. Jesus Christ is the prince of the rulers of the earth.

It says in Revelation chapter 1-5, now he's the prince of the rulers of the earth. And if you'll read Psalm 2, it's a glorious psalm, one of the most important Psalms in all of the Bible quoted often in the New Testament. The psalm begins with the nations in rebellion against God. We're going to cast off his cords. We're going to break his bands and cast them asunder.

And we're going to be our own God. We're going to set up our own laws and so forth. And the Lord in heaven sees this rebellion and says he laughs. It's like that, oh. He's false.

But God has an answer. And he says, I have an answer to the rebellion in the world, and it's my son. And he establishes his son. And from Acts chapter 13, the establishment of the son and the declaration that he is God's mediatorial king took place at the resurrection and ascension. And then it says to the kings of the earth, now therefore the kings of the earth be wise, be instructed of you judges of the earth and serve the Lord with fear.

And with joys was trembling and kiss the son, the son of course of Jesus Christ. To kiss the son in the ancient world was a sign of covenantal loyalty, where a vassal would kiss the feet of the Lord to which they were submitting and pledge obedience and loyalty to his over lordship. The command of the Bible is that all magistrates and nations are to do that. Are they doing it? No.

Is it significant that they are not doing it? Yes, because the text goes on to say, lest he be angry and his wrath be kindled a little. Christ is the Lord and family, church and state are to submit to his Lordship. Now in the institution of these governments he is given the husband and the father, covenantal headship and representation in the family. In the church, covenantal headship and representation is given to the elders, and they have the jurisdiction of the church, and the civil ruler is given covenantal headship and representation in the state, in the civil sphere, and they have jurisdiction over a defined civil sphere.

By the way, this is very important in ordering life and understanding the concept of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction comes, the word juris there, law, it's where you can dictate the law, where you can speak what is right and true and bind people and exercise positive or negative sanctions over them. A husband and father only has jurisdiction over his own family. I have jurisdiction over my family but I don't have any jurisdiction over your family as a father and a husband, None. Maybe I could have some influence as a friend, and a counselor, and so forth.

I don't mean jurisdiction. I cannot dictate the law of your home. You stand under Christ as a husband and father in the same area of a church. As an elder, there's different concepts of church government here, and so I know that we have some different views on that. But however you define the church in this situation, elders have jurisdiction only over the local church.

And they do not have jurisdiction over a family as a family. And the civil ruler does not have jurisdiction over the church or the family in the sense that they dictate the law for that church or dictate the law for that family. They dictate the law in the sphere they are given. And they are given the sphere, for example, of upholding the violation of our neighbor in terms of the, just using an example here, the Ten Commandments, the second table of the law. They have jurisdiction to punish murder.

They have jurisdiction to protect the property and life of those who are under their jurisdiction. But the point here is the hierarchy is consistent and is clear. Christ is over each institution and God in his word, Christ as the mediator king, has established in the time of his kingdom, husbands and fathers, elders and civil rulers. And they all stand directly under Christ. And also he has appointed male headship in each one of these governments.

Let's look at number two. The biblical qualifications for civil rulers forbid female magistrates. 1 Corinthians 11 and verse 3 shows that the creation order and Christ's kingship and headship and man's headship over the woman applies in this era. It's upheld in 1 Corinthians 11, 3. We also though have specific text.

Would you turn with me to Deuteronomy, or to Exodus first, Exodus first, 18 21. While you're turning, remember the comments that I made in the previous message about 2 Timothy 3.15-17. Please remember them because this is part of the word of God that is profitable for instruction, for correction. Wait a minute, I got the word of God is prophet for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God might be thoroughly equipped. So I am given the privilege in the providence of God to do what they did in the Old Testament.

They did choose their civil rulers. Even King had to be affirmed by the tribes. Read about David's coronation. Yes, God's pointed out to the Prophet that this was his anointed man, but that didn't settle the issue. The tribes came together, the elders of the tribes, and they acclaimed David as king.

And Deuteronomy 17 showed that that was the responsibility of the people. It would be a man that God chose, but they needed to look at the qualifications for a ruler and they needed to put him into office. Even more important is Deuteronomy 16 and verse 18 that specifically instructs the people to establish the magistrates in their local jurisdictions of the towns and cities of Israel. They were to choose them. On what basis?

In Exodus 18, 21, we have instruction given to us here where God in his providence uses Moses' mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jethro, to give counsel and direction to him on the matter of the ruling of the people. And he says to him, verse 21, Moreover thou shall 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 of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of ten. And let them judge the people at all seasons and so on there. Here we have this direction given but before I comment on that look to Deuteronomy passage because this is something that might be in your mind and it was brought up to me recently as someone was responding to something I'd written and said that this teaching about the the civil magistrates qualifications is really just some suggestion from Jethro, is not the law of God. It begins in verse 5.

He says, on this side of Jordan, in the land of Moses, began in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying, he comes down to verse 13 and the issue of choosing magistrates, take you wise men and understanding and known among your tribes and I will make them rulers over you." That's God's law. But even more is to be seen here. In chapter 1 and verse 18, he comes to the end of this discussion about the putting into office of civil rulers. And he summarizes all that happened back then in saying, and I commanded you at that time all things which you ought to do. This is not the suggestion of Jethro.

God used him. But we are told here explicitly in the Word of God the interpretation of what happened with Jethro is that it was God's speaking through him even as he spoke through Balaam's ass. He was speaking through him and it was the law or the will and direction of life. The law of God, by the way, the word Torah, means direction, instruction, in living. I instructed you in how to act as those who had this wonderful privilege being delivered from Egyptian tyranny to be your own people, to govern yourselves, to choose your own rulers.

I declare to you this law and I declare to you, " as he said in verse 18, all things, I commanded you to do these things. And so it's a command of God, it was the law of God that the people of God who were in the position of exercising that privilege and choosing the rulers, that they ought to take wise men understanding and known among you, and I will make them rulers over you. Now in both of these passages we see various qualifications. Putting the two together, in Exodus 18 21 there to be those who fear God, those who are men of truth, they're committed to truth in every sense of the term. Speaking the truth, loving the truth, doing the truth, They hate covetousness.

They will not use their office to enrich themselves. And then in Deuteronomy 1 13 it says, take you wise men, understanding men, men who know the Word of God and can apply it. They're known among your tribes. You've observed them. You've seen their character.

But in both of these passages, the word men appears, and it is the Hebrew gender-specific males. Moreover, you shall provide out of all the people able males. Take you wise males and make these rulers over you." Now reading that, looking at the context, dealing with all the theological issues that go in the ethics of the Old Testament apply in the New Testament, I can say to myself, I know what is pleasing to God when I exercise my ballot and vote. Now granted it's sometimes hard to know does this man really fear God? Is he really a man of truth?

I mean those things are difficult And those things where we do come into opinions and so forth, but we do know the standard that we must apply. And we do know this much. If we are convinced they are not men of truth, they do not fear God, they do not hate covetousness, they are not wise in understanding, then we can't vote for them. I also submit to you that unless they are males, we can't vote for them. And that one standard is as important as the other.

If we can do away with the one as far as God's instruction to us on how we should live in this part of our life as citizens, then we can jettison, fear God, men of truth, they can be liars, they can be covetous people who are going to use their office for their own enrichment and so forth. None of us would say that, rightly so. But what about place over them able males? You see, all magistrates, even today, are God's servants. Read Romans chapter 13.

And whether they recognize it or not, they are under his authority. And he requires of them all of those things. Believer or unbeliever. You say, well God doesn't judge unbelievers and he doesn't judge Gentile nations today. You know, that was about Israel.

Well, let me ask you this question. If there was a doctrine that God devoted 15 straight chapters to teach, would you think it's important? Well, that's exactly what we have in Isaiah 13 through 27. 15 straight chapters where Isaiah teaches God judges Gentile nations for their sin. It's important.

God judges Gentile rulers, unbelieving rulers today. If they are covetous men, if they're liars, if they do not fear God in this, honor Him in their office. If they're foolish men, he will judge them. He still holds them to those standards and so must we. We're responsible to apply these things.

There's some other scriptures that were given there on that point. I would just mention to you that every time the Bible speaks about magistrates and their qualifications, He speaks about them in terms of men and the male gender. Number three, the biblical role of the woman is against this concept. The Woman was created by God for a specific purpose. God made her to compliment the man, designed her both physically and emotionally, to be able to carry out those responsibilities.

God has wonderfully equipped her for her work and to fulfill her roles. Well, her roles and her work is defined, how do you know what a woman's role is? Getting back to the basic question of Christian living, how do you justify what you believe to be true? Christian epistemology. How do you know what a woman's role is and justify it?

Now you can justify it in really one of three ways. Your own reason, experience, or the Word of God. There are only three ways you can really do it. So what is a woman's role? Van Til spoke about Christian view of knowledge in this way.

For the Christian system, knowledge consists in understanding the relation of any fact to God as revealed in scripture. I know a fact truly to the extent that I understand the plan of God. It is the plan of God that gives any fact meaning in terms of the plan of God. The whole meaning of any fact is exhausted by its position in and relation to the plan of God." End of quote. And we could say, I know truly, truly the fact of the woman and her role to the extent that I understand the plan of God for her.

And that is where her meaning is defined and exhausted. There's no more beyond that. And of course, when we talk about her meaning, we're not just talking about now, as I've expanded a little bit, beyond her role. There's a meaning she has in worshipping God, believing in Jesus Christ, and so forth. So she's also defined in that realm as well.

But we're talking now about roles and authority. And in that sphere, God defines it. According to God's interpretation of the fact of womanhood, we understand the following. She is man's helper in the dominion task. She is under man's headship.

She is designed both in body and spirit to be a mother of children. She's the one. God has given that incredible privilege to be the one. We're in the next generation, conceived and nurtured in her body, the most wonderful creation of God, the woman's womb, it's what's so tragic when it's invaded. God made the woman with this incredible ability and privilege of bearing the child and then specifically to take it to her breast and to nourish it.

Her life being given to that child and then to train the child. And God has perfectly designed her in body and spirit to do that. Men have a responsibility for the children. We have a calling there, but we were designed in body and spirit to do our part. Number four, she's called to manage the home.

First Timothy 5.14 says she is to guide the house. I think we had a, I think Kevin got a little bit mixed up last night. He said the word Keepers at Home meant oikadespatas. Actually, it's the first Timothy 5.14 of that word, is instead it's guide the home, it means to manage the home. The Titus passage on keeper at home, if you wanna get little, means to stay at home.

That's what the word essentially means. But you stay there for a reason. I mean, you stay at home to do your work. But it's 1 Timothy 5.14, she is to guide and manage the home. God's called her that.

She has authority and she exercises it there in the management of her home. Together with and under her husband. She has authority. The proverb says to the children, listen to the law of your mother. You're a lawgiver in that sphere, in the most important sphere.

We were having a discussion the other night at a mealtime and someone was talking about a very, I won't give the name, a very gifted Christian woman, intelligence scholar, has written some tremendous books. And the question was, it was almost like, we can't just confine her to the home. We've gotta give her a platform, we've gotta give her a wider ministry. On whose definition and whose interpretation of womanhood. And if there's almost this subtle thinking that she's doing something more important by preaching to thousands than she is devoting all her energies to her wife and she's a married woman to her husband and to her children.

It's a faulty presupposition. Somehow it's more important for her to write books, give lectures, and travel the country. I don't think so. I think she's dissipating the real place and power where God has put her. And I'm not speaking against this.

I don't dislike her. That's not the point. It's not what I feel, what I experience, what I think. I can't define my approach to things. It's what does God say?

And I must bring my mind under it. And number five, what this definition is given of her, she's a weaker vessel. Now, we can talk about that. We can try to describe exactly what that means. But she's a weaker vessel than the man.

That's what scripture says. I know it to the degree that she's a weaker vessel. How that all works out, I've got to think about that. But I would suggest that this means she's been designed to carry out her role, not a man's role. And she's not designed in body or spirit to be the leader, provider, or protector.

Now, some courageous women in extreme circumstances have done that. But that's not our point. That's experience becoming your model. You say, well, I know a woman who was a leader, a provider, and a protector. She did better than her husband.

So you're an empiricist. You believe that the source of knowledge is experience, right? That's your source. I'm a biblicist. I can say, yeah, she obviously did that.

But it's not the woman's role, it's not her calling. Now, and I'm speaking now a little bit outside of what I said, there's sometimes where a godly woman has to do that in extraordinary circumstances for a time. And she's not to be condemned for it. But she is a weaker vessel than the man. And so God's authoritative interpretation of the woman is that she's under man's headship.

She serves God and others in the context of her husband, children, and home. She also has ministry to others, but it's within that context. She does minister to other people. She does minister and build up others. The older women, they do teach younger women and all this, and she does minister, but it's within a context of her position in her home.

You know, the woman's calling, primary calling in life, I believe, is to make her husband successful. That's what it means to be a helper. But here's the thing. His success is not his success. It's our success, husband and wife.

Can we start to think that way? Can we let God's word cleanse our mind and renew it and see that glory? Any success, any success that I have had by the grace of God is my wife's to share. And I can honestly say I would not have been here today in a very broad and deep sense if it wasn't for the ministry of my wife. And I'm not just talking about cooking my food and washing my clothes.

I'm talking about my chief counselor, my chief sounding board for theology discussion. This is not denigrating to the woman at all. And a woman needs to know theology, but why? So she can be a helper to her husband, not his teacher, but a helper. And teachers need help.

I need it all the time. And often, as an elder and a pastor of church, the help I get are pretty pointed questions or suggestions. You know, I think you should have overlooked this or this or that. We need help. Men, we are really needy people.

That's why God gave us a wife. And so the role of the woman, one other thing, the picture of the virtuous woman, I'm probably going to run out of time as far as getting to Deborah, which was actually supposed to be my main topic, but this is too important. You can read, seriously, I wrote a lengthy essay on the subject that would probably be better for you just to read that. It's on Vision Forms' website. They entitled it, But What About Deborah?

And it was specifically about this issue. It goes into quite a bit of depth to deal with it. And I will mention in passing as I end about Deborah, but I'd rather talk about this right now. This is what's on my heart. In Proverbs 31, 10 to 31, We have this picture, an ideal picture, idealistic, and a lot of you women are, yeah, that's idealistic, that's not reality.

But it is an ideal picture of the godly woman, the covenant-keeping woman, and it shows her in Proverbs 31, 10 to 31, and it shows her serving and working within what context? Her home. Serving her husband and her children and managing her household. Of interest is in verse 23, it says, her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. Remember, this is the ideal picture of a Christian woman.

Who is known in the gates? What do you mean by the gates? The gates were the place where the elders of the land sat to adjudicate the issues of crime and civil justice. They sat in the gates. This woman is not in the gates.

Her husband's there. But the point of the whole thing, too, is he's there because she's where she is. And she's making him successful. His heart fully trusts in her, and she manages her home in just a wonderful, wonderful way. One passing thought on that Proverbs 31 is some people say, well, you know, it shows her as sort of like a real estate agent.

She sees a field and purchases it and so forth. Well, the word, the word, the Hebrew word for purchase means to take or to seize. It could mean purchase, but not necessarily. You know what I think it means? She's this wise manager of her household.

She's looking over the estate. And she sees a field that is fallow, that is not producing for the household like it should. And so she takes hold of it. And she makes it productive. And she plants a vineyard.

In other words, it's her own property. It's like you, ladies, see a part of your household that's just not really functioning right. There is potential there in a lot of ways, but even financial potential for the household. And you discern this, and you take hold of the project, you seize it, and you plan a vineyard. I don't think anywhere in Proverbs 31 do we see the woman going out into the business world, out in the real estate world, out into those type of things.

But we do see an incredibly gifted, confident, God-honoring woman who is doing the will of God. Number four, the biblical lament of women ruling over men is also against this concept. If you look at Isaiah 3, Isaiah chapter 3. In the beginning of the chapter, you know, in our context of Isaiah, we are having the prophet Isaiah ministering in the 8th century BC to Judah, the southern kingdom of Judah. Then chapter 1 shows us of the apostasy, the sin within the nation and judgment is coming.

In fact, judgment is already there and chapter 3 speaks about how God is judging them. And look how the Lord judges. Look how the Lord judges Judah. For behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water." What is this referring to? It's talking about that which brings stability to society.

Judean society has been made stable by a certain group of men. The mighty man, the man of war, the judge and the prophet and the prudent and the ancient, the captain of fifty and the honorable man, the counselor and cunning artificer and the eloquent orator. These were the men who were giving stability to society and to every social sphere, these kind of men. But God's judgment is to take him away. When God is judging a culture and a leader, one of the clues is the leadership that are in the positions of authority in society.

Are they wise men, honorable men, courageous men, mighty men, prudent men? Or are they, verse 4, children? Are their princes and babes rule over them. In other words, they're as foolish and childish as literal children and babes. When we have foolish and childish leaders, we know we are under the hand of God's negative sanctions.

He removes the staff and the stay of society. And then he goes down to talk some more about this and returns to the theme in verse 12. It says, as for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh, my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths. When you look at this in the context, you see that society is under judgment.

In its place is the overturning of God's order. Remember, the creation order brings stability, prosperity, and blessing. When that is overturned, the opposites descend upon a society. And by the way, this is just not what God does for the people of Israel. You can quickly find the chapter later on here in Isaiah in a prophecy against Egypt.

In Isaiah chapter 19, the same judgment of removing wise, Stable leaders, capable leaders that was visited upon Judah is visited upon Egypt. Now verse 13, the princes of Zoan are become fools. The princes of Napha are deceived. They have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes." Stay of and stay, same word. "'Why, the Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof.

And they have caused Egypt to err in every way. Therefore, has a drunken man staggered within his vomit? Neither shall there be any more work of Egypt for the head or the tail, the branch or the rush. In that day, Egypt shall be like unto women, and shall be afraid, " and so forth. So God judges not just Israel, but he judges Egypt in the Old Testament, judges America today by removing godly leaders and putting in their place childish men and also women.

Verse 12, I know America is under God's negative sanctions. I know it by these verses. To what degree? Because God's sanctions are designed to bring people to repentance, and they began at a certain intensity level, and if men do not respond, he takes it to another level. If He doesn't respond, he takes it to another level.

And if they don't respond, we come to the final cursings that we see in Deuteronomy 28. In Israel's case, it meant the overthrow of their holy and legion to exile, but We're under judgment. And so when we look at the issue of women magistrates, and we consider the doctrine of headship, the biblical qualifications, the role that God has assigned to her, and this lament that we find in Isaiah 3 to 12, it's hard for me not to come to a conclusion, to say I know it's not God's will for me to support a woman for office, nor for a Christian woman, any woman, but particularly a Christian woman, to run for office. And therefore, I think that this most recent example we have was a very tragic situation. And the woman in question professed faith in Christ, and I don't say that she didn't know Christ.

But Christians can be disobedient and do things that are not according to scripture. We all know that from our own experience. We know that. The Word of God interprets that experience, and we know it. Because we know what sin is.

We know it's sin because the Bible says it. I wasn't saying empiricism there. We know it because the Bible says it's sin, and we've committed it. That's what I mean by our experience of the truth, the experience of the word. And there is such a thing as experience.

We all have them. In fact, you're having one right now. Interpret the significance of it. That's what Christian life's about. We Come to the final point in the next five minutes.

And I said, please, if you'd like to consider this further and understand why I do not think Deborah is a conflict with this, that she wasn't really even a female civil magistrate. Two main points here. In this, the biblical narrative should never be used to cancel the explicit laws and doctrines taught in Scripture. Even if Deborah was a civil ruler and God put her in that place, that narrative should not be used to cancel the explicit laws and doctrines taught in Scripture. That is a fundamental principle of hermeneutics.

Otherwise, we could say, well, polygamy is justified because God obviously blessed David, put him in the kingship, and look at the wives he had. Solomon, the wisest man in the world by God's calling and choice, he had many wives. We cannot use biblical narrative to cancel out the explicit laws and doctrines taught in scripture. But furthermore, a careful study of the book of Judges demonstrates that Deborah was not a civil ruler or a judge. If we look at the historical context of the Book of Judges we understand that in that time of history judges didn't rule the land.

The elders of the people ruled the land. There was no central government and the elders of the people ruled in the land. Number two, the function of the judges in the book of Judges was not that of being a civil ruler. They were men of war raised up by God to throw off the dominion of the Gentile Canaanite nations who were oppressing them. They were soldiers.

They were military commanders. They were not civil rulers. And they were charismatic men. They were raised up by the Spirit, did the work, and then went back to whatever they were doing. And in the book of Judges, Deborah does not fulfill the role of a judge.

What is a judge? A man of war who leads the people of Israel into battle. She did not do that, She was a prophet. God used her to call Barak. Barak's the judge, not Deborah.

In Hebrews, it's interesting. In the book of Hebrews, in the catalog of the great men and women of faith and the things that they achieved for God. There is a section in that listing that deals with the period of the judges. And it says this in verse 32 of Hebrews 11. And what more shall I say?

For the time would fail me to speak of Gideon, who is he? Judge. And of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah. All of those are judges. And I believe that we have even here the bringing together under Holy Spirit New Testament interpretation that the brach is the judge.

But it's not just based on that verse. But it's comparing scripture to scripture as we look at the role of the judge and we see the Barak did it. So I don't think that Deborah is an exception to the rule. She wasn't a female magistrate. But even if she was, I submit to you, according to the standard hermeneutical principle, that passages that speak more clearly to issues are what define doctrine, not the questionable ones, and not biblical narrative.

So my conclusion is that a woman should not serve in the office of female magistrate. It's not an irrelevant issue. It's a very important issue. And we're losing the battle today, partly. And we've just seen how we surrendered high, high ground.

It makes me weep. Good men, I believe, surrendered the high ground for political expediency. I don't charge them that they did it on that motive. That's not my point. That's how I see it.

You can agree with me or disagree with me. And they are my brothers. And I'm so thankful for the work they've done but they have missed it in my opinion this time. Father we thank you for this opportunity to study together further on this subject use it in our lives according to thy precious and holy will in Jesus' name. Amen.