Sworn to the King: Covenant Fidelity and Idolatry in Israel’s History

Covenant as a Treaty: Israel’s Unique Relationship with Yahweh

In the ancient Near East, covenants functioned as legally binding treaties between a sovereign and their vassal. The biblical concept of covenant closely follows this framework, portraying Yahweh as Israel’s sovereign and Israel as His vassal. This arrangement was unparalleled in antiquity—no historical records indicate that any other nation had a divine covenant akin to Israel’s.

Dr. John H. Walton underscores this distinction: “Gods in the ancient world do not make covenants with their worshipers; a covenant is normally made between a king and his subjects.” In this way, Israel’s relationship with Yahweh was structured more like a political allegiance rather than a conventional religious system (The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, p. 81).

Idolatry as Political Treason

Many interpreters view idolatry primarily as a theological offense—misplaced worship of a deity. However, within Israel’s covenantal framework, idolatry was more than religious apostasy; it was political insubordination—an act of rebellion against their King.

Walton expands on this idea:

"Since idolatry is a covenant offense, and covenants are made by kings and not gods, it seems more logical that Israelite idolatry is not offensive to Yahweh in his role as their God but in his role as their king" (The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, p. 81).

The biblical narrative consistently equates covenant unfaithfulness with treason, as seen in Jeremiah 3:13, where Israel’s disloyalty is framed in political terms.

The Mosaic Law: A Governance System, Not a Universal Moral Code

The Mosaic Law is often misinterpreted as a universal moral standard designed for all people. In reality, it functioned as a set of case laws—specific guidelines tailored for Israel’s societal governance under Yahweh’s kingship.

Walton clarifies this distinction:

“The existence of the covenant allows Israel what we might call rights to which they can hold God accountable (that is, the covenant blessings, conditional on their fidelity), but this arrangement is so far unattested elsewhere in the ancient world, but in the Bible does not apply to anyone outside Israel.” (The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, pp. 68-69).

Thus, the Law was not intended to function as a moral framework imposed on all humanity but rather a contractual structure defining Israel’s obligations within their covenant treaty.

Israel’s Role: A Light to the Nations

A critical component of Israel’s covenantal identity was its role among the nations. Rather than functioning as an evangelical force, Israel was meant to embody God’s presence, drawing others to Yahweh through its national distinctiveness.

Zechariah 8:23 illustrates this concept:

“In those days, ten men from nations of every language will grab the robe of a Jewish man tightly, urging: Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.” (CSB)

Walton emphasizes that Israel was not called to actively convert outsiders but to reflect Yahweh’s presence so that others might be drawn to Him:

“Note that it is the Gentiles who are chasing after the Jews, not the other way around. Israel’s purpose is not to create converts; it is to create something that people might potentially be able to convert to, namely, a people and a nation that God is with.” (The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, pp. 82-83).

Thus, Israel’s mission was never about proselytizing but about embodying Yahweh’s kingdom—offering a tangible witness of divine sovereignty that could attract outsiders.

Conclusion: Reframing Covenant, Law, and Salvation

The biblical covenant between Yahweh and Israel stands apart from other ancient treaties. It was political, not merely religious, and established Yahweh as Israel’s King rather than simply their deity.

This political nature reframes idolatry—not as misguided worship but as treason against Yahweh’s kingship. Similarly, the Mosaic Law was not a universal moral system but a governance framework regulating Israel’s responsibilities within the covenant.

Finally, Israel’s role was not that of religious missionaries but covenantal representatives—a nation meant to embody God’s presence rather than actively recruit converts. This unique framing challenges conventional theological perspectives, urging a deeper understanding rooted in the political, legal, and historical realities of Israel’s covenant with Yahweh.

Faith, Fellowship, and Gratitude: The True Story of the First Thanksgiving

Introduction

The First Thanksgiving is often misrepresented, with some claiming it was a celebration marking the end of King Philip’s War. However, historical evidence demonstrates that the First Thanksgiving occurred decades before the war, rooted in gratitude for survival and provision rather than military victory. Additionally, the Puritan movement’s theological framework shaped their interactions with Native Americans, leading them to view indigenous peoples as potential converts rather than obstacles to colonial expansion. This article explores the true origins of Thanksgiving, the Puritan mission, and the impact of King Philip’s War on the Pilgrims, clarifying whether they were active colonizers or caught in the conflict due to the expansion of other colonies.

The First Thanksgiving: A Celebration of Survival and Providence

The First Thanksgiving took place in the autumn of 1621, following the Pilgrims’ first successful harvest in Plymouth Colony. (1) After enduring a brutal winter that claimed the lives of 45 out of the 102 passengers aboard the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, joined by the Wampanoag people, gathered for a three-day feast to give thanks for God’s provision. This event was not a formalized holiday but rather a spontaneous act of thanksgiving, reflecting the Puritan practice of setting aside days to acknowledge divine blessings.

Contrary to the claim that Thanksgiving was a celebration of victory in King Philip’s War, the First Thanksgiving occurred over five decades before the war began. The confusion likely arises from the fact that colonial authorities declared a day of thanksgiving in 1676 following the war’s conclusion. However, this later observance was distinct from the 1621 feast and carried a different meaning.

The Puritan Movement and Their View of Native Americans

The Puritans emerged in the late 16th century as a reformist group within the Church of England, seeking to purify Christian worship from perceived Catholic influences. (2) Their theological framework was deeply rooted in biblical typology, leading some Puritans to view Native Americans as descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. This belief influenced their missionary efforts, as they saw indigenous peoples as potential converts rather than enemies to be exterminated.

Puritan literature and sermons often framed their journey to the New World as a continuation of biblical narratives, likening their struggles to those of the Israelites in the wilderness. This perspective motivated them to evangelize Native Americans, establishing missionary efforts such as John Eliot’s translation of the Bible into the Algonquian language. While conflicts did arise, the Puritans generally sought to integrate Native Americans into Christian society rather than eradicate them.

The Pilgrims and Colonization: Were They Expansionists?

The Pilgrims, who settled Plymouth Colony in 1620, were distinct from the larger Puritan movement that later established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Unlike the Puritans, who arrived in greater numbers and actively sought to expand their settlements, the Pilgrims were primarily focused on survival rather than territorial expansion. Their initial interactions with the Wampanoag were largely peaceful, facilitated by the alliance with Massasoit, the Wampanoag leader.

While the Pilgrims did acquire land, they did so through negotiations rather than outright conquest. The expansionist policies that led to King Philip’s War were largely driven by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and other New England settlements, which aggressively sought to control more territory. The Pilgrims, by contrast, were caught in the conflict due to their proximity to the war’s epicenter rather than being primary instigators of colonial expansion. (3)

King Philip’s War: Causes and Consequences

King Philip’s War (1675–1678) was one of the most devastating conflicts in early American history, arising from tensions between English settlers and Native American tribes. (4) The war was named after Metacom (King Philip), the Wampanoag leader who sought to resist colonial expansion and preserve his people’s way of life. The conflict resulted in widespread destruction, with settlements burned and populations displaced.

For the Pilgrims and other colonists, the war had profound consequences. Many settlers abandoned their towns, seeking refuge in more secure areas. The war also marked a turning point in colonial-Native relations, leading to increased militarization and a shift in attitudes toward indigenous peoples. While some Puritans continued missionary efforts, others viewed Native Americans with greater suspicion following the conflict. (5)

Conclusion

The First Thanksgiving was a celebration of gratitude and fellowship, held decades before King Philip’s War. Unlike the later arrivals in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Plymouth settlers were not aggressive expansionists but were drawn into the conflict as a result of the broader colonial push for land. Motivated by their theological convictions, the Puritans aimed to convert Native Americans rather than eradicate them, though tensions inevitably arose. While King Philip’s War reshaped colonial society, it was not the origin of Thanksgiving. Recognizing these historical nuances helps us appreciate the true significance of the First Thanksgiving and the complex relationship between Puritans and Native Americans.

Biblical Justice vs. Social Justice: Why the Gospel Offers a Better Way

 

Introduction: The Rise of a New Justice Paradigm

In recent years, social justice and critical theory have gained significant traction in cultural and academic discourse. Advocates of these movements argue for systemic change, equity, and the dismantling of oppressive structures. While these ideals may appear noble, they often diverge from the biblical understanding of justice and truth. As Christians, we must critically examine these ideologies in light of Scripture to discern whether they align with the Gospel or stand in opposition to it.

Understanding Social Justice and Critical Theory

Social justice, as defined by contemporary movements, seeks to address inequalities in society by redistributing power and resources. Critical theory, rooted in Marxist thought, analyzes societal structures through the lens of oppression, categorizing individuals into either oppressors or the oppressed. While these frameworks aim to rectify injustices, they often rely on human-centered solutions rather than divine truth.

Historical Perspective on Biblical Justice

Justice has always been central to God's character and His relationship with humanity. Throughout church history, theologians such as Augustine emphasized justice not as a mere social construct but as an attribute of God Himself. The early church was known for its radical care for the poor, widows, and orphans, but it did so within the framework of the Gospel, not political ideology. This historical perspective reminds us that biblical justice must be rooted in divine revelation rather than cultural trends.

The Biblical Perspective on Justice

Scripture presents a radically different view of justice—one that is rooted in the character of God. Biblical justice is not merely about societal equity but about righteousness, mercy, and truth. The prophet Micah declares, "Mankind, he has told each of you what is good and what it is the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) Unlike secular justice movements, biblical justice is inseparable from God's holiness and His redemptive plan for humanity.

How Social Justice and Critical Theory Contradict the Gospel

1. A Distorted View of Sin and Redemption
   Critical theory defines sin primarily in terms of systemic oppression rather than personal rebellion against God. This contradicts the biblical teaching that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The Gospel offers redemption through Christ, not through social activism or political revolution.
   
   

2. Identity Rooted in Victimhood Rather Than Christ
   Social justice movements often emphasize identity based on race, gender, or class, fostering division rather than unity. Scripture, however, teaches that believers are one in Christ: "There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
   
   

3. Justice Without Grace
   The justice promoted by critical theory often lacks the grace and forgiveness central to the Gospel. Biblical justice calls for both righteousness and mercy: "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has not shown mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:13)
   
   

Critical Theory as an Alternative Worldview

Many scholars argue that critical theory functions as a competing worldview—or even a secular religion. It offers its own definitions of sin (oppression), salvation (activism), and eschatology (a utopian society). This perspective helps explain why critical theory often clashes with Christianity, which defines sin as rebellion against God and salvation as faith in Christ. Rather than bringing true reconciliation, it fosters perpetual division, pitting individuals against each other based on identity rather than unity in Christ.

The Role of the Church in Justice

The church has historically been a force for justice—abolishing slavery, advocating for human dignity, and caring for the marginalized. However, biblical justice is always tied to the Gospel, not merely social reform. True justice comes through transformed hearts, not political ideologies. The church must continue to uphold righteousness while ensuring that justice is pursued in a way that honors God and leads people toward salvation.

Engaging with Opposing Views Thoughtfully

Many proponents of social justice and critical theory argue that these movements address real injustices. While systemic issues exist, the Bible provides the most comprehensive solution by addressing both societal and individual sin. Engaging with opposing viewpoints respectfully—while demonstrating that biblical justice offers redemption, reconciliation, and true transformation—strengthens the argument.

Theological Foundations of Biblical Justice

Biblical justice is deeply rooted in God's holiness, sovereignty, and love. Scripture affirms, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; faithful love and truth go before you." (Psalm 89:14). God's justice is not arbitrary or socially constructed—it flows from His very nature and is expressed through His redemptive plan for humanity.

The Danger of Ideological Syncretism

One of the greatest risks in engaging with secular justice movements is ideological syncretism—blending biblical truth with human philosophies. Many Christians unwittingly incorporate secular justice principles into their worldview, compromising biblical doctrine. We must remain vigilant, ensuring that our pursuit of justice is grounded in God's Word rather than shifting cultural ideologies.

A Call to Personal Holiness and Justice

Justice is not only societal but deeply personal. Scripture commands believers to live righteously, treating others with mercy and integrity. "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world." (James 1:27). Every Christian is called to embody justice through personal holiness, ethical living, and compassionate service.

Conclusion: A Call to Biblical Justice

The pursuit of justice is a noble endeavor, but it must be grounded in the truth of God's Word. Social justice and critical theory, while addressing real concerns, ultimately fall short because they rely on human wisdom rather than divine revelation. As Christians, we must reject ideologies that distort the Gospel and instead embrace a justice that flows from God's righteousness, mercy, and grace. Only through Christ can true justice and reconciliation be achieved. Let us remain faithful to the Word of God, advocating for justice in a way that reflects His holiness and redemptive plan.

Sex Slavery and the Bible

    Did the Old Testament Law allow for men to buy and sell young women for use as sex slaves?

    According to some skeptics, the Bible says just that in Exodus 21:7-9 which reads as follows:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." ~Exodus 21:7-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

    If one were to take this passage at face value without understanding the cultural context, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that this passage is speaking about sex slavery. However, this is simply not the case. The first and foremost reason being that both prostitution and the act of selling one's daughter into prostitution were specifically condemned by the Hebrew Law. (Leviticus 19:29, 21:9, Deuteronomy 23:17)
    
    Since prostitution was forbidden under Jewish Law we must therefore ask several questions of this passage. 

    First of all, the English translation of verse eight speaks of a broken contract. Yet no contract is mentioned in the preceding verses. This, of course, raises the question of what contract has been broken? Furthermore, why does the breaking of this unspecified contract allow for the woman to be returned to her father's house? If this woman is a sex slave, as the skeptic claims, then why can't her owner sell her to a foreigner when he is finished with her?
    The answer, while obscure in English translations of the Bible, is quite obvious in the Hebrew text. In the original langue this passage says that by purchasing the woman as a slave, the man has "betrothed her to himself."  (יְעָדָ֖הּ) This means that the woman was sold as a slave with the expressed intent of marriage. Being betrothed to a man is not the same as sex slavery. Neither is marriage to a slave woman.
    According to the very next passage (Exodus 21:10) a slave-wife (concubine) was entitled to the same rights and privileges of a free-born woman. The one exception being that the children of a slave-wife did not have an automatic share of their father's inheritance, while those children born to a free woman did.

    The case of Abraham and his many sons is a great example of this cultural practice. Issac was born of Abraham's free-born wife, Sarah, while Ishmael was the child of Abraham and Hagar—Sarah's maidservant. Abraham also had six more sons by a slave-wife named Keturah in Genesis 25:1-6. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac was his heir because he was born of a free woman. That said, if a man wanted to pass on his inheritance to the son of a slave-wife then he would have to publicly name that child as his heir. Which was not uncommon. 

    In the case of Exodus 21:7-9, if a man bought a young woman as a slave-wife but did not marry her himself,  he was then required to give her in marriage to his son or to another servant within his household within seven years. Otherwise the woman's father could buy her back at that time. (According to the the Jewish Laws recorded in Exodus 21:2-3, every seventh year all Hebrew slaves would be freed, and all of their debts would be canceled). This is why a slave woman would not be freed at the end of the six year period as the men were; because she was expected to be married to a member of the household by that time.

    In the culture of ancient Israel, it was considered a public disgrace for a woman of marrying age to remain unmarried. This is why the man was required to allow the woman to return to her father if he broke his contract to marry her. If he failed to do so and kept her as a servant in his household, he would be condemning her to a life of shame. Furthermore, he himself would be disgraced for failing to find her a suitable husband, thus breaking his pledge to her father. The original Hebrew actually accuses the man of treachery and deceit (בְּבִגְדוֹ־) if he did not marry the woman he purchased. In this way, the purchase of a young woman from her father was not unlike the practice of paying a dowry for her betrothal, and showed the serious intentions of the husband-to-be. 

    That being said, the man in this scenario also had the ability to choose to marry the woman himself or to give her in marriage to another man within his household (ie. his son) if she did not satisfy him.

    It is important to note here that the Hebrew word translated as "satisfy" or "please" in some English translations does not imply anything sexual. It simply means that the man likes the woman. Or, to phrase it another way, she is pleasing in his eyes. This does not mean that the man got to sample her sexually before deciding whether or not to marry her. Such practices were not only condemned by the Old Testament Law but would also have prevented the man from giving her to his son (or anyone else) as a wife. (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:28-30)
    Furthermore, the language used in this particular case implies the negative; that the woman is displeasing (רָעָ֞ה) in the eyes of her master rather than pleasing. That is to say, the woman is so disagreeable that marriage to her would result in nothing but misery on the part of the man who married her.

    To summarize: what this passage is really saying is that if a man found himself in a position of financial desperation and could no longer provide for the members of his family, he could sell his daughter as a servant with the understanding that the man who bought her would marry her himself. If the man found that he did not really get along with the woman, then he had seven years to find her a husband within his household. If the man failed to do so, then the girl's father reserved the right to buy her back again once his debts had been canceled. The man who paid for the woman's hand in marriage could not keep her as a servant, nor could he sell her to someone else if he failed to uphold his end of the bargain. In this way, the act of selling ones daughter as a servant was a desperate father's final attempt to insure that she would be provided for when he could no longer insure her well-being. 

    Another passage commonly referred to by skeptics seeking to support their position on sex slavery in the Bible is Numbers 31:25-50, which details the division of plunder after a battle between Israel and Midian. 
    In verse 35 we find 32,000 virgin girls listed among the spoils taken by the Israelite men. Were these women taken as sex slaves by the victorious Israelites? What about those women given to God as His share (Numbers 31:36-40)? Were these virgins brutally sacrificed to the Hebrew God as some skeptics claim?

    As with the previous case, the truth becomes apparent when we examine the context of this passage. The first question we should ask ourselves is: why did the Israelites go to war against the people of Midian in the first place? Both Israel and Midian were descendants of Abraham. (Genesis 25:1-6) Moses himself was married to a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-22) and  clearly had no quarrel with his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. (Exodus 18) Why then did Moses suddenly decide to go to war against his family's kinsmen?
    The answer can be found a few chapters earlier in Numbers 22-25, which recounts Israel's journey through Midian and the land of Moab. Numbers 22:1-7 introduces us to Balak, the king of Moab, and describes how both he and his people were filled with terror at the arrival of the Israelites in their land. In an attempt to destroy Israel, Balak and the elders of Midian sent messengers to enlist the help of the sorcerer Balaam, hoping that he would be able to place a curse on the people of Israel. However, we read in Numbers 23-24 that God prevented Balaam from cursing Israel. Instead, God caused the pagan sorcerer to pronounce blessing after blessing upon His people.
     Having failed to curse Israel,  Balaam instead persuaded the women of Midian and Moab to seduce the Israelite men in Numbers 25 so that God Himself would strike Israel for their sin. As Balaam predicted, the sexual debauchery of Israel caused the Lord's anger to "blaze against His people," resulting in a plague that killed some 24,000 Israelites. This is why Israel went to war against Midian in Numbers 31.

     Realizing this, we must ask the obvious question: would the Israelite men be willing to indulge themselves in sexual sin with Midianite captives when it was sex with the women of Midian and Moab that had caused the plague in the first place? 24,000 of their kinsman had just died as a result of God's wrath, so the possibility of this seems remote. Furthermore, we must also consider Moses's statements concerning ritual purification after the battle as recorded in Numbers 31:18-19.
    According to Leviticus 15:16-18 sexual intercourse would cause both men and women to become ceremonially unclean. This means that the men would not have been able to have sex with the captive women, since they were required to purify themselves and their captives for seven days.

    We must also realize that in most ancient near-eastern cultures women were married off as soon as they reached puberty. This meant that if a girl was prepubescent, she was in all likelihood still a virgin. Additionally, married women in the near-east also wore veils or other special headwear while unmarried women did not. The same can be said of temple prostitutes who wore distinctive clothing, jewelry and hairstyles to represent their status as holy vessels of the gods. This meant that it would have been easy for the Israelites to recognize who was a virgin and who wasn't. If a captive girl was under the age of twelve or was not wearing a veil or the attire of a temple prostitute, then it was safe to assume that she was a virgin.
    Thus it can be concluded with a high degree of certainty that most, if not all, of the virgins given to the Israelite men were children under the age of twelve, as these would have been the obvious virgins among the captives and would not have been involved in the plot to lead the men of Israel into sexual sin. (Which was the entire reason why Israel went to war against Midian in the first place.) This fact combined with the Hebrews' stringent laws on sexuality (Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 18, 20:10-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14,  22:13-30) and the fair treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:1-11, 16, 20-21, 26-27, Leviticus 26:35-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18) makes it highly unlikely that these children were ever used as sex slaves. If anything, they would be wards in the care of their master until they were old enough to work as servants in his household.

    One final point worth mentioning here is the issue of whether or not some of the captives taken from Midian were sacrificed to the Hebrew God. As mentioned earlier, some would claim that Numbers 31:36-41 says just that. However, human sacrifice—especially child sacrifice—was  condemned by the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:9-12) This means that these young girls were not sacrificed to God. Rather they were given to God as servants to the priests in the tribe of Levi. Again, this is apparent in the original Hebrew which states that the virgins set aside as the Lord's share, or "tribute" (הַמֶּ֥כֶס), were part of the "heave offering" (תְּרוּמַ֣ת); the portion of the sacrifice reserved for the priests or otherwise set apart for holy use. (see Leviticus 7:14, 31-34, Numbers 18:19)

    In closing, it is clear from the cultural, historic, and textual context of the passages in question that sex slavery, rape, and prostitution were never permissible under Old Testament Law. However, it is fair to point out that sinful man is not above misusing God's Word to justify actions that are contrary to the Scriptures' intent. The people of Israel themselves would violate God's Law time and time again throughout history, as would countless others. 
    That said, in order to violate God's Law, one must first divorce Scripture from its context. Once this is done, it is easy to twist God's Word to justify every whim of man's sinful heart. That is why it is so important to understand Scripture in its entirety; to view the Bible through the lens of the culture and history of those to whom it was originally written, and to understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally penned. To do otherwise is to resign oneself to an interpretation of Scripture limited only to a superficial understanding, rife with misinterpretation and misunderstanding. In this way, the skeptic is no better than the man who distorts the Scripture to justify immorality. Both choose to ignore those portions of Scripture that conflict with their presuppositions and as a result, both are misinformed. One uses Scripture to justify the very evil the Scriptures condemn. The other uses Scripture to accuse the Scriptures of supporting what the Scriptures actually condemn. In both cases truth is lost.
    Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to take the time to study the Scriptures for themselves so that the lies of those who misuse God's Word can be exposed and refuted.



   

See Also:

Slavery and the Bible: Is the Bible Racist?

   

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?

What about Phoebe?

There's a lot of talk these days about how the Bible's ideals and moral principles are obsolete for today's society; the result of man's attempt to enforce order and control over weak-minded and/or ignorant individuals.
Perhaps the most hotly contested topic of all is the role of women in the church, and indeed the rest of society.

Understandably there are many individuals who are offended by what the Bible says in verses like Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, and especially 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
For this reason many people, including Christians, have come to the conclusion that the Apostle Paul was a sexist. (Even though the Apostle Peter said the exact same things in 1 Peter 3:1-6) However, there is one passage of scripture that I would like to present as evidence to the contrary:

"I (Paul) commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. Welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God’s people. Help her in whatever she needs, for she has been helpful to many, and especially to me."
~ Romans 16:1-2 New Living Translation (NLT) 

Paul clearly thought very highly of Phoebe, and did not see himself as superior to her. In fact, he even went so far as to instruct the Church in Rome to welcome her as someone "worthy of honor." She was not a subservient, voiceless puppet. She was a person; Paul's sister in Christ, and a great help to him on his missionary journeys--something that would have been completely counter-cultural in the first century AD. 

Furthermore, the Bible goes on to tell us that "all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17 New Living Translation (NLT) )

Are we then permitted to choose which verses apply to us and which ones do not? Obviously not! Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it isn't. We don't get to pick and choose. Just because something is hard to understand or is offensive to our 21st century culture, doesn't mean that it is any less relevant. Cultures may change. But God's Word endures forever. (1 Peter 1:25) 

See Also:

Women and the Bible: Is Bible Sexist?

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?

Submission: The “S” word.

In the English language, the word submission conjures up all sorts of negative images. Images of slavery, bondage and abuse. This is especially true in western countries like America and the UK, where freedom and the rights of the individual are held in the highest regard.

It is no wonder then, that many progressive individuals are offended by what the Bible says in passages like Ephesians 5:22-24.

“And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.”

~ Ephesians 5:21-24 New Living Translation (NLT)

Many people take the first half of this passage by the Apostle Paul and instantly accuse Christians of being sexist, male chauvinists, or worse. This however, is completely untrue. The Bible never says that women are supposed to be subservient to men—in fact it never tells them to be subservient at all! Women are instructed to submit to their husbands only, not all men. (Colossians 3:18)

Furthermore, the Greek word used for “submit” in the passage is actually indicative of “respect,” and is used elsewhere in antiquary to speak of the voluntary submission of soldiers to persons of a higher rank. This meaning becomes even more apparent as you read the rest of this passage.

“As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. 

For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. And we are members of his body.

“As the Scriptures say, ‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

~ Ephesians 5:24-33 New Living Translation (NLT)

Look closely at verse 33. 

“So I say again, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

Where is the word “submit” in Paul’s summary? It's obvious from the context of this passage that respect was the idea that Paul was trying to convey to the early church, not submission. Furthermore, “wives respect your husbands in everything” leaves a lot less to the volatile 21st century imagination than “wives submit to your husbands.”

Another key point I want to make is that while this verse does address women first, it doesn't end there; it addresses men too, and commands them to “Love their wives just as Christ loved the church.” 

And what is the definition of love? 

“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” 

~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 New Living Translation (NLT)

Jesus loved the Church so much that he was willing to sacrifice himself for us, his “bride.” So the question is, men: are you willing to lay down your life for your wife; sacrificing yourself daily to care for her needs? Because that is exactly what the Bible commands us to do.

Love is sacrificing your own needs, wants, and desires in order to put another person’s needs above your own. “Submission” is respecting the husband’s role as head of the home and willingly sacrificing your own authority to allow him to lead. This does not mean that women are to be subservient to men. It also does not mean that a man can do whatever he wants to his wife. God’s command for men is that they love their wives, not abuse them and treat them like property. 

Jesus is the standard—the example of how men are to treat their wives. If what they are doing does not line up with Christ’s example, and they see this passage of scripture as justification to use and abuse their wife, then they are not loving their wife. Love and respect are both sacrificial—putting another person’s needs above your own. 

In that regard, a husband’s love and a wife’s submission are not at all dissimilar. Men want to be respected—respect is how they feel loved. They want to feel like they are Super Man to their wives, not Clark Kent. Likewise women want to be loved and cherished, to feel secure both physically and emotionally.

Ephesians 5:22-33 is not a passage justifying spousal abuse or male-superiority. It is a passage that clearly outlines the deepest desires of both sexes—even if some people try to deny it. It is a passage that presents guidelines for godly marriage in an attempt to prevent spousal abuse and sexism in a society and culture where both were commonplace.

So then, is the Bible sexist?

Not at all.

The Bible is a book of equality, not division or superiority. Jesus is the great equalizer. No one is better or worse than anyone else. Everyone is equal before God: Sinners in need of His mercy.

As the Bible says:

“There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” 
~ Galatians 3:28 New Living Translation (NLT)