Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

WomenForPresident

Why were there no female priests in Israel and no female Apostles? Why were there no female queens appointed by God to rule over Israel? Was it just cultural sexism or was the lack of women ruling over men based on the what these people understood and accepted about God’s design of gender roles?

Moving forward to our modern culture, does the Bible allow for a woman to President of the United States?

A brief history of Women seeking America’s highest office

Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are not the first women in American history to seek America’s highest office. In 1884, Belva Lockwood, an activist for voting rights for women and for African Americans campaigned for president.

In 1872 and 1892, Victoria Woodhull ran for President of the United States the first time from the Equal Rights Party, and the second time from the Humanitarian Party.

Many other women since then have either run for President from very small parties, or have sought the nominations of the Republican or Democratic parties.

What does the Bible say about a woman being President?

Obviously there was no such thing as a President in Biblical times, so the Bible would not specifically mention it. But the Bible does teach Patriarchy (male leadership over women).

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Home:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Church:

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

I Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in Society:

“But I would have you 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.”

I Corinthians 11:3(KJV)

Other Biblical facts that go against women in leadership positions over men

Christian Feminists have spent the last century attempting to explain away the clear teachings of God’s Word that I have mentioned above. In addition there are many more facts they cannot overcome.

Never in Israel’s history was there ever a female high priest, or female priest period.

Never in Israel’s history did God appoint a female Queen to rule over Israel.

None of the Apostles were women (you would think if God believed in gender equality, he could have carved out at least one slot out of 12 right?)

There is not one recorded instance of a female Pastor in the New Testament.

While I would agree with my feminist Christian friends that the absence of something does not necessarily forbid that thing, it certainly makes for a stronger case when we have verses that clearly say that man is the head of woman, the husband is the head of the wife, and in the church a Bishop is “a man” who is “the husband of one wife” and one that “ruleth well his own house”.

But what about women leaders in the Bible?

This is the primary weapon that Christian feminists have used to assault the patriarchal system that is clearly taught from Old Testament and into the New Testament. Below I will mention each one of these women who are raised as an objection to the Bible’s teaching on Patriarchy in society, the church and the home. Then I will mention a brief note on each explaining her role.

Miriam – prophet. – It never specifically says she exercised authority over men.

Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a “woman”. It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.

Hulda – prophet during the reign of Josiah. She served at a time when Israel had forsaken God, one of their darkest hours. Josiah sought to restore worship and the Word of God and sent messengers to her to seek the will of God.

Anna – a widow who became a prophet and pronounced Jesus to be the redeemer of Israel

Lydia – business woman in the Philippian Church, but the Bible never refers to her as a leader or a Pastor.

Priscilla – helped Paul while he was establishing churches at Corinth and Ephesus; with her husband Aquila, corrected Apollo’s preaching and helped him to learn of the new way in Christ.

Junias – contrary to feminist teachings, she was not an Apostle, but she was honored by the Apostles for her work in the Lord.

Phoebe – a servant in the Church at Cenchrea, She was not a deacon as feminists assert.

Let’s address the Deborah and the Hulda in the room

Only two of the 8 women mentioned often by Christian feminists truly exercised spiritual leadership over men.

The time periods when Deborah and Hulda were prophets were times of great moral and spiritual decay for Israel. Men were no longer exercising moral or spiritual leadership as we can see in Barak’s refusal to go to war without Deborah by his side.

Let me be blunt – God called women into spiritual leadership roles, as an exception to his design, in order to shame the men into bringing the nation back to God, and into exercising their God given responsibility to lead in the church, the home and in the nation.

In no way does the Bible EVER paint women in leadership roles as a positive thing, but it is something God uses to shame the men into action.

“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(KJV)

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules

God made these exceptions to his own design at limited and specific times:

  1. God allowed a donkey to speak to a Balaam in Numbers chapter 22.
  2. God tells the prophet Isaiah to go and prophesy naked for 3 years in Isaiah chapter 20.
  3. God tells the prophet Hosea to go marry a prostitute (something clearly forbidden for priests) in Hosea chapter 1.
  4. God took Enoch (in Genesis 5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) directly to heaven without them first experiencing physical death.

My point is – God can and does make exceptions to his design at various times. But unless God actually directly commands an exception to his design, as in the case with Deborah and Hulda, we have no right to deviate from his design of patriarchy in the home, the church or society at large.

What God says women are to do

Christian feminists spend so much time looking for exceptions to God’s design that they stumble and fall over God’s clear direction to women, as to the normal way a Christian woman should live her life.

God says his normal design is for women is to be helpmeets to men and this is how women are commanded to live:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

“The aged women… That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5(KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here in regards to God’s design for women. Young women are to marry, have children and manage their homes for their husbands. They are to be obedient to their husbands, to love their husbands and children and to be discreet. When women are older they are then to teach the younger women how to be good Christian wives and mothers.

The Bible does not forbid women from spiritually leading other women, as long as that leadership does not contradict with a churches authority, or a husband’s or father’s authority.

This would allow for Christian women’s conferences, for Christian women to teach ladies Sunday school classes, and for women to write books or blogs as long they are not exercising spiritual or physical authority over men.

I have given all this Biblical evidence, and answered the false arguments of Christian feminists to say this – a Christian woman has no business running for or assuming the office of President of the United States. In fact a Christian woman has no business being in a leadership position over men, whether it is in the home, the church or society at large. God says “the head of the woman is the man” we would do well to follow his design.

But do we need to submit to female leaders in Government as Christians?

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Romans 13:1(KJV)

God tells us that rulers, good or bad, are allowed to come to power by his will. We are commanded to pay taxes and be subject to our rulers. That includes if they are women. If a woman run’s for President, that is something between her husband and her, and between God and her. We can and should teach God’s design, but at the end of the day, we each have a personal responsibility before God.

Would I vote for a female President?

Depending on the situation, yes. The reason is if the female candidate comes closer to Christian positions than the male candidate, I must support the lesser of the two evils. For instance if the female candidate is pro-life and the male candidate is pro-choice, I will most likely vote for the female candidate unless she is way off in some other way.

Update 10/13/2016

The 2016 Election and the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I originally wrote this article back in 2014 long before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the candidates representing our two major political parties here in the United States.

As I write this update to this article today our nation is faced with a huge choice coming in less than a month.  This article has spiked on google as Christians search out the truth of how they should vote.

Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman the only reason I as a Christian man am not voting for Hillary Clinton? No.

But in the world of politics we often have to choose the lesser of the two evils.

The prophet Daniel served under Kings that lead sinful and immoral lives and as long as they did not ask him to sin against his God he served them faithfully.  The point is sometimes we don’t get a simple choice between a godly person and an ungodly person in politics.  Sometimes the choice is between two ungodly and sinful people and I believe that is the choice we are being presented with in this 2016 Presidential election.

I would have considered voting for Hillary, despite her being a woman which is a violation of God’s design if she did not have these things on her record:

  1. She is a proponent of abortion and especially the heinous partial birth abortion.
  2. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives through their insurance.
  3. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them accept and participate in gay marriage(bakers, photographers, wedding planners, county clerks and judges).
  4. She is for going after churches that endorse conservative Christian candidates and who call out liberal candidates as unchristian.
  5. She believes in legalized theft of private property through the government seizing the private property of some(money) and simply redistributing it to others.  It is one thing to take taxes to pay for basic government services – that is a Biblical concept.  It is another when you take what one man has rightfully earned and simply give it to another man who has done nothing to earn it.
  6. She does not believe that a nation has the right to defend its borders, language, culture and economy.  One of the first duties of government is to defend it’s nation from all outside threats whether they be military(including terrorists), cultural or economic threats.

Hillary Clinton has many other flaws including being a liar and a corrupt politician. Is Donald Trump a liar too? Yes he has been caught in many lies. So perhaps on this issue of lying they may be equally flawed.

Donald Trump despite his flaws(and they are many) is a candidate whose positions on the issues of our time comes far closer to a Biblical perspective than does Hillary Clinton’s.

These are the reasons I will be voting for Donald Trump in the next month:

  1. He proposes that we strike the IRS provision put in by Lyndon Johnson in 1954(Section 501(c)(3)) that punishes Church leaders for making political endorsements or criticizing political candidates by removing their status as non-profit organizations.  This was a major violation of the first amendment right to free speech as well as freedom of religion and it must be struck down.
  2. While he has been careful on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage in his statements, if he appoints any of the judges on his list of judges these judges will bring a screeching halt to the gay rights movement assault on religious liberty.
  3. Speaking of judges – these same judges that Donald Trump has pledged to appoint to our various levels of Federal courts will uphold private property rights(another Biblical concept) as well.
  4. He has taken a pro-life position and is against partial birth abortions.
  5. He believes one of the most important duties of government is to protect the nation from outside harm whether it be cultural, economic or military threats including terrorism.

I am glad that God has allowed us in this election cycle to be able to vote for a man in keeping with his design that men should rule over women. I am glad that the male candidate is closer to the Bible in his positions than the woman so we will not have to go against God’s design in voting for a female president.

Other related articles:

How a Christian wife should handle a controlling husband

You were made for him

 

12 thoughts on “Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

  1. If you are going to apply biblical principles for church and family leadership to a secular government where leaders are democratically elected, then Ronald Reagan should have been disqualified. He was divorced and remarried, and therefore not literally a husband of one wife, as the Bible commands for elders. Christians are not under an Old Testament civil government system any more than they are obligated to follow Kosher laws or the temple sacrificial system.

    By your logic, Christians would have to form theocratic communities separate from the rest of society, but the New Testament never depicts the early Christians doing this. The reality is the Bible gives a husband headship over his own wife, and limits women only from having ecclesiastical authority over men. Any restrictions beyond that are traditions of men, and have no standing on biblical authority.

  2. Derek,

    What you miss is, this is not a matter of applying “biblical principles for church and family” to secular government. Each sphere of authority, government,work,church,family(parent to child, husband to wife), gender and God to each person each has its own dynamic, and its own boundaries(except for God to person, this is 100% absolute authority), but they also share principles.

    One of the under lying principles that God say governs all authority spheres is that of gender authority. God says that “man is head of woman”. This is an underlying principle and is applied to all spheres, and that is why men lead in the church, the home and yes they should lead women in the secular world as well. But it is incorrect to apply all the rules for each individual sphere to secular government.

    God never says secular leaders cannot be divorced, he does not even say secular leaders have to be Christians, but he does say “man is the head of woman”. I never said we are under the Old Testament government system, we are under the New Testament law. Although we can still learn from principles in the Old Testament, but we are not under the old law, unless it is brought forward in the New Testament(which some of it is).

  3. I am intrigued by this discussion. I have been trying to articulate why I would not vote for a female candidate. I have always believed that man is head of woman, but could only support the argument for the environment of the home and the church. I am going to continue reading the word; hiding it in my heart that I might not sin in hopes of finding answers.

    I have always believed there was/is a rationale as to why I have felt so strongly about a woman for President being a poor choice. I believe the Bible is the divine, inspired word of God and that it is what should lead all those who love and are followers of God. However, we are talking about the secular world; where it seems that anything goes now a days and we are lovers and followers of self. So, maybe the Bible does not apply here? It is just a scary thought, we have moved so far away from the old landmarks, to gray, to anything goes.

    Just my thoughts.

  4. Demi – thank you for kind comments. You are on to something when you say “maybe the Bible does not apply here?”, as in the world of outside the home and the church. I understand especially as Americans, we are leery of having a church state government, and I would never advocate for one(until Jesus Christ returns, then we will have the best Church state government you ever saw! Free of any corruption).

    I believe in the freedom of every individual to believe in God, or not believe in God. To go to church or not got to church. To worship as they will, whatever god they so choose, all the while believing myself that there is only true God, and he the God of Israel, and the Bible. However all laws in a society are based on the people’s morality, and if the people are primarily Christian, then it would make sense that their laws will find their source in Biblical morality – there is nothing wrong with that in my view.

    I believe if it was God’s will, and this nation did turn back to God before Christ returns, that there would be nothing wrong with us passing stricter laws on divorce and adultery, and stricter laws against prostitution and other behavior that threatens the family unit. I also believe there would be nothing wrong with passing tax credits – massive credits, to encourage women(not men) to stay home and raise their children. On the other side I would favor huge tax penalties on women working while having small children in day care, unless they have been divorced(with cause) or their husband has abandoned them or died.

    I believe we need to rollback feminism – but it begins in the home. Men need to take back their homes for Christ, to lead in their homes, and to lead in their churches. Only when men take strong leadership positions in the home and the church, will we be able to take back our culture for Christ.

  5. What is your opinion then on female managers, CEOs, and women in authority at work? I’ve worked and studied hard to get where I am, I’m the breadwinner in my marriage, and while my husband wishes that wasn’t so it is and he doesn’t begrudge me, but rather the choices he’s made. I won’t feel guilty being a leader at work because I’m a woman. I let my work ethic and technical skills speak for themselves.

  6. Laurie,

    I believe it is not God’s perfect will that women are female managers, CEOs and in authority in work positions over men.

    In fact God says it is shame when women have to rule over men:

    “Youths oppress my people,
    women rule over them.
    My people, your guides lead you astray;
    they turn you from the path.” – Isaiah 3:12 (NIV)

    It has nothing to do with intelligence or talent. I am sure there are many intelligent and talented women like yourself. The point is not what a person’s cognitive capacity is, but the roles to which God has called each of us into.
    Some men have no desire to work, and would rather stay home and take care of kids while their wife goes out and brings the money home. God has not left that option. Obviously if a man is disabled and cannot work there may be some room, but God’s ideal is that a man works and provides for his home, and his wife cares for her children and her home. God’s ideal should be our ideal as a society.

    Some women go work part-time jobs after their kids go to school and other women work jobs from home as they care for their children and I don’t see this as violating God’s law – as the woman in Proverbs 31 did some work outside the home. But many have falsely tried to paint the Proverbs 31 wife as a fully time career women, and that simply does not match the language of the passage. Her central focus is always on her home, and anything she does outside her home is always secondary to that.

    I realize you said your husband does not begrudge you or the fact that you are the primary breadwinner, and I am sure he loves you very much. But the very fact that your husband “wishes that wasn’t so” tells you what God designed. He designed a man to be the primary provider. A man providing for his family is one of the things that makes him feel like a man.

    I realize that none of the passages of Scripture I have shown on this site will change your mind, but I believe the Scriptures are clear and our society has gone far from what God meant the roles of men and women to be.

  7. “husband of one wife” means presently married to one wife, aka not a polygamist. Holding more than one wife is not a correct representation of Christ’s relationship with the church, which is the entirety of its meaning and how it glorifies God, and thus not acceptable for a leader of His church.

    If a married Christian man and Christian woman (the only marriage) divorce for a reason other than adultery (the only justified reason God gives man for divorce), their marriage still exists in God’s eyes, unless they then marry someone else (of the opposite sex). If there is a second marriage after an unjust divorce, then that first marriage is no longer existent. If it were, God would not declare attempting to go back to that person an abominable sin that should never, ever occur. However, if the divorce was on ground of adultery, then it is a just divorce, and thus ends in God’s eyes, allowing the man and/or woman to marry again righteously. They are not literally or at all a husband of more than one wife. But, before remarrying, if a man and woman divorce on unbiblical grounds/reasoning, they are still married in God’s eyes, making relations with another adultery (up to and including the act of marring someone else, afterwards the second marriage is the only marriage existing and is not perpetual adultery). God still hates divorce in any and all cases, but that is how marriage works for Christians.

    Scripture, on the subject of non-believers marrying, teaches this:
    If one spouse is a Christian (either comes into Christianity or was one before) and the other remains or comes out to be an unbeliever and chooses to leave the believer that the believer is to let them leave. The marriage is over at that point. This is acceptable divorce between a Christian and unbeliever. However, if one spouse is a believer and has a non-believing spouse that is willing to stay with them, Scripture commands that they stay with the unbelieving spouse.

    So if Reagan was remarried, regardless of the reason for his divorce, and not a polygamist, he was not husband to more than one wife. With that said, Christians should always support a President who most closely pursues God’s will. Reagan could have been the wrong choice, sure, but it’s not like every Christian thinks he was amazing or the right guy. People always use him as the go-to when talking to us…

    Christians are no longer slaves to the imperfect law of the Old Testament, but the New Testament teaches clearly on this matter, and stand-alone shows that Christians should never strive for women to be dominant over men. Christians being free from the Old Testament’s religion does NOT give them an excuse to ignore God’s will and wisdom for the roles of man and woman. Man is supposed to be the authority over woman in the house, home, and church because of how God designed women to be the submissive helpmeets to men– this reason does not cease to exist beyond the church. A man or woman’s soul does not change because society wants their genders to change.

    In regard to Christians voting for President or offices of dominance in general, we should always seek out other Christians who are striving to follow God’s will to vote for. However, it’s rarely ever an occurrence that a true believer makes it to the voting stage for Presidency. At the point where there is not one, Christians have to vote for who comes closest to righteous belief. A man can have a great plan for the economy and the like, but if he supports abortion (mass murder of the weakest of man, those who God calls us to love and protect), they should never be voted for, even if you know your other choice won’t win. To vote in favor of abortion is to sign off on slaughter of innocents– God will ask an account for this sin when Judgement comes.

    If there are no real Christian men in the running, but there are real Christian women who actually strive for the God of the Bible’s will, than Christians should vote for the women with the truest beliefs. It’s not that women CAN’T be President, it’s that they SHOULDN’T be, by God’s design for authority. As in Scripture, if God puts a woman in dominant authority over men, it is to shame the men into action. I will vote for a woman President if she is the most Godly choice and pro-life. But if there is a Godly man in the running who holds the same principle to follow God’s will and is pro-life, I will choose the man. Biblical authority gives the desire for a male President over a female President standing, as long as the man in is closer to God’s Biblically declared will in their beliefs and actions than the woman. If the woman is closer, then voting for them has standing by Biblical authority.

    No government, even a Theocracy with a benevolent and God-fearing dictator of a King (like David), will ever be perfect, because man is imperfect and the vast majority of the world’s population are unbelievers who hate righteous things. Thus, no government will ever allow for the proper and complete facilitation of God’s will for humanity– they will all crumble, as Scripture teaches.

    So does the Bible allow for a woman President? Yes. Does that mean God teaches that it is what we should want? No. Scripture teaches otherwise, but voting for a woman President isn’t inherently sin on the voter’s part.

    ———–
    What I have written here pertaining to divorce and God’s will for man and woman pertaining leadership is Biblical truth, as made clear by the Scripture presented in the original article on this page, Corinthians, Deuteronomy and other books. It is not an opinion declared. God bless.

  8. “Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a ‘woman.’ It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.”
    Deborah did not “lead” the army anywhere. She accompanied Barak to inspire his confidence.
    An item of interest: The woman into whose “hand” the LORD handed the army of Jabin, represented by Sisera, the commander, was Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite.

  9. Kyle:
    “If one spouse is a Christian (either comes into Christianity or was one before) and the other remains or comes out to be an unbeliever and chooses to leave the believer that the believer is to let them leave.”
    Good so far.
    Uh-oh:
    “The marriage is over at that point.”
    Scripture please.

  10. Kyle:
    “… if Reagan was remarried, regardless of the reason for his divorce, and not a polygamist, he was not husband to more than one wife.”
    Ronald Reagan’s only Biblically valid marriage was (1952-2004) to Anne Frances Robbins (“Nancy Davis”). His first marriage was adulterous, for Sara Jane Mayfield (“Jane Wyman”) was the wife of Myron Futterrman (m. 1937–1938; divorced), who died 1965.
    So, from a Biblical standpoint Reagan was the husband of only one wife, from 1952 until death did them part in 2004.
    Whether he was conscious of it, repented, or just stopped being an adulterer in 1948, he never had but one genuine wife. From a Biblical standpoint his divorce from Sara Jane Mayfield was an annulment of an invalid marriage.

  11. I truly believe God intends a woman as a man helper (not equal or superior) ever since Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The Bible clearly says so.

    One thing I like to point out is that God does not make an exception because God cannot lie. So the case of a few women who led Israel in the Old Testament time was not an exception, but The word of God comes true in Isaiah 3:12 “……. and women rule over them …..” – this is what happens when man forsakes his Creator.

    Nowadays, it is not just a few cases of woman in charge of man as in the time of old but there are many women in charge over man at just about every level because man truly forsakes his Creator and Isaiah 3:12 comes true in every case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s