Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.

Does Isaiah 3:12 show that women leaders are a bad thing?

Women leaders Isaiah 3

Deborah, prophetess and judge of Israel


A reader asked yesterday what I thought about Isaiah 3:12 which reads,

Children (“infants“) oppress my people, and women rule over them. My people, your leaders mislead you; they confuse the direction of your paths.

In this article, I look at the context of Isaiah chapter 3 and at three possible interpretations of Isaiah 3:12. What does this verse reveal about God’s view of women as leaders?

The Context of Isaiah 3:12

Isaiah chapter 3 is an oracle of judgment. It tells of the demise of Jerusalem and Judah as a consequence of Judah’s rebellion against God (Isaiah 3:8). This rebellion was brought about by the vices and mismanagement of its civil and religious leaders.

At the beginning of Isaiah chapter 3, we read that God is about to remove the capable and gifted people from Judah, including the ruling classes of Jerusalem (Isa. 3:1–4). This is exactly what happened in the early sixth century when the Babylonians invaded Judah and began deporting their best and brightest.

An English translation of the Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:1 reads: “Behold now, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the mighty man and mighty woman, the strength of bread, and the strength of water” (Isa. 3:1 Brenton; the NETS translation is here.) In the following two verses, God lists what kind of mighty men and women will be removed: “the hero and the warrior, the judge, the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of fifty and the dignitary, the counsellor, skilled artisan and clever diviner” (Isa. 3:2–3). These kinds of people were considered necessary for a healthy functioning society in the ancient world.

Israel had previously benefited from the wise counsel, leadership, and heroic actions of certain men and women, but there would come a time when only the poorest, weakest, and least skilled would be left in Judah. Anarchy and extortion would follow as irresponsible and ill-equipped people became leaders.[1]

These leaders are described as children and as untrained in Isaiah 3:4. This idea of children as leaders comes up again in our text, Isaiah 3:12. Furthermore, God outlines some ways people will be cheated and oppressed by their leaders (Isa. 3:5, 13–15). These ideas may also be behind Isaiah 3:12.

What does Isaiah 3:12 mean?

There are three ways of understanding God’s words in Isaiah 3:12.

1. Isaiah 3:12 should be interpreted literally.

Some believe that the meaning of Isaiah 3:12a, as it is in the Hebrew text, should be taken literally despite the rhetorical nature of the prophecy. If so, Judah is being ruled by inexperienced youth. However, the Hebrew word used in this verse, עוֹלֵל (olel), more commonly refers to small children, even infants. Nevertheless, God may be speaking about Ahaz who was a weak and wicked king. In the year 732 BC, Ahaz began his sixteen-year rule at the age of 20 (2 Kings 16:2 cf. Eccl. 10:16).

According to the literal interpretation, Judah is also ruled by women, perhaps the queen mother (cf. 2 Kings 11:1-16) and other prominent women in the royal court. These may be the “haughty women of Zion” denounced in Isaiah 3:16–25. The descriptions of these haughty women show that they are wealthy and, therefore, influential.

2. Isaiah 3:12 should be interpreted metaphorically.

A second possible interpretation of Isaiah 3:12, one that is favoured by many scholars (and by me), is that metaphors are used in this verse. In this interpretation, the words “children” and “women” are not to be taken literally. Rather they signify that the leaders are inexperienced, capricious, or foolish (like small children) and also cowardly or effeminate (like women) (cf. Isa. 3:4). In a note in the Geneva Bible (1599), Theodore Beza takes the metaphorical view and describes these leaders as “manifest tokens of [God’s] wrath, because they would be fools and effeminate.”[2]

As now, it was an insult in ancient times to call a grown man a “child.” To call a man a “woman” was also, unfortunately, a common insult. This is because there was a stereotype that women were more easily frightened and more cowardly than men. (There are plenty of women in the Bible, however, who do not fit this stereotype. See here.)

The “woman” insult is used elsewhere in Isaiah. It occurs in Isaiah 19:16 which is about the downfall of the Egyptian people, male and female: “In that day the Egyptians will be like women, and tremble with fear before the hand that the LORD of hosts shakes over them” (ESV). This insult is also used in Nahum 3:13 about the downfall of Ninevah whose troops were male but called “women”: “Behold, your troops are women in your midst. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies …” (ESV). In Jeremiah 50:36-37 and 51:30, this idiomatic insult is aimed at those in Babylon, including Babylonian warriors and even horses.

One example of this insult used outside the Bible is given by the historian Herodotus where he records Xerxes, king of Persia, as saying: “My men have become women, and my women men” (Histories 8.88.3). Both Vashti and Esther risked their lives by standing up for their principles and defying Xerxes’ request and ruling (Esth. 1:12; 4:16 cf. 5:2). But Xerxes’ words here are about his own men who floundered and about Queen Artemisia I of Caria. Xerxes had tremendous regard for Artemisia who was his ally and who had personally and valiantly led her navy in the battle at Salamis (480 BC). Courage was thought to be manly, so Xerxes refers to her as a “man.”[3]

In Isaiah 3:12a, it is not clear who, specifically, the inept leaders of Judah are, or will be. But according to the metaphorical interpretation of this text, they are being belittled and disparaged in ways that ancient audiences would have readily understood. Unfortunately, the idiomatic “woman” insult is misunderstood by some today.

3. Isaiah 3:12 originally did not contain a word for “women.”

A third possible interpretation, which is favoured by some scholars and Bible translators, is that the word for “women” was not originally part of Isaiah 3:12; rather, the original word meant “creditors.” (There is also some doubt about the word “children” in 3:12.)

The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, the word can also be read as noshim (נשים)which means “creditors.” The Aramaic Targum Jonathan of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Translation (NET) translates the pertinent phrase as “creditors rule over them”.[4]

The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. (It is these later vowel points that distinguish nashim from noshim.) The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a (translated into English) reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.”

Extortion is alluded to in the verses directly following verse 12 where God condemns those who have plundered and oppressed the poor.

The Lord brings this charge
against the elders and leaders of his people:
“You have devastated the vineyard.
The plunder from the poor is in your houses.
Why do you crush my people
and grind the faces of the poor?”
This is the declaration of the Lord God of Armies. (Isaiah 3:13–15 CSB cf. Isa. 3:5)

The idea of being extorted by creditors fits with the overall context of Isaiah chapter 3, but so does the idea of inept, ineffectual people as leaders.

Whatever the original word may have been, nashim or noshim, God was saying Judah was being misled by incompetent and unscrupulous people.

Here are two English translations of Isaiah 3:12 that translate the first sentence very differently.

My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths. (NRSV)

Oppressors treat my people cruelly;
creditors rule over them.
My people’s leaders mislead them;
they give you confusing directions. (NET)[5]

Does the Bible show that women leaders are a bad thing?

God’s judgment for Judah’s rebellion, caused by bad leaders and extortion among the people, was that Judah would be oppressed by leaders who were even more incompetent. Some people, however, believe that having female leaders was part of God’s judgment in Isaiah 3:12. They argue that having a woman as a leader is an aberration from God’s preference for male leadership in the community of his people. Is this really the case?

The events in the Old Testament mostly occurred at a time when patriarchy was the pervasive social dynamic: men ruled women (cf. Gen 3:16b). So there were many more male leaders than female. Nevertheless, some women were leaders of towns, civic leaders such as Sheerah and the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah. And some women were prophets, religious leaders such as Miriam and Huldah. Deborah was a judge and a prophet, two of the roles listed in Isaiah 3:1–2ff, and God blessed Israel through her leadership. Salome Alexandra was a pious woman who brought peace and prosperity when she reigned Judah as sole monarch from 75 BC until her death in 67 BC.

Some women held respected and recognised leadership positions in Israelite society. These women were used by God and respected by men. Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo rightly note,

Scripture offers no evidence that the Israelites ever rejected a woman’s leadership simply on the basis of gender. On the contrary, we get the impression that Israel acknowledged the authority of God-ordained women leaders to the same extent as their male counterparts.[6]


Being advised or taught or led by a godly woman is not an act of God’s judgment or punishment. Rather, it is leadership given by fools and wimps, or corrupt creditors, that constitutes God’s judgment against Judah in Isaiah 3:12 (cf. Isa. 3:14–16). Isaiah 3:12 is not an indication that God does not want or does not allow his people to be led by capable women.


[1] “The irony of the situation is highlighted by describing the possession of a cloak as sufficient evidence of distinction to warrant a leadership role.” Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 33.
In his translation of the Old Testament, John Goldingay gives Isaiah 3:1-15 the amusing title “You have a coat, you can be a leader.” John Goldingay and Tom Wright, The Bible For Everyone (London: SPCK, 2018 ), 651.

[2] Theodore Beza, “Commentary on Isaiah 3:12,” The 1599 Geneva Study Bible. (StudyLight)

[3] The Greek word for courageous, andreia, which is used for both valiant men and women in Greek literature and in the Bible, comes from the Greek word for “man” (e.g., Prov. 12:4; 31:10 cf. 1 Cor. 16:13). This is because courage was associated with masculinity even though there are plenty of examples of brave women in the ancient world and in the Bible. I look at women described as andreia in my article Revisiting Eshet Chayil (Woman of Valour).

[4] Reputable English translations that reflect the “creditors” interpretation are the Common English Bible (CEB), the Good News Translation (GNT), the New English Bible (NEB), the New English Translation (NET), Brenton’s Septuagint Translation and Lexham’s English Septuagint.
Adam Clarke (1762–1832), British Methodist theologian and biblical scholar, writes, “This verse might be read, ‘The collectors of grapes shall be their oppressors; and usurers (noshim, instead of nashim, women) shall rule over them.'” (Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)

[5] Note 29 in the NET Bible, here, gives good information on the textual uncertainties of Isaiah 3:12.

[6] Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 67.

© Margaret Mowczko 2016
All Rights Reserved

You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!


Excerpt of Deborah Praises Jael, wood engraving by Gustave Doré (1866) (Wikimedia)

Pastor Mike Davis speaks about Isaiah 3:12 and refers to my article many times. He makes many excellent points that are not mentioned in my article, and I especially what he says at the 1.06.24- minute mark.

Explore more

The Queen of Sheba and 3 more Female Rulers in the Bible
The (im)Propriety of Bible Women with Authority
Bible Women with Spiritual Authority
Revisiting Eshet Chayil (Woman of Valour)
Many women leaders in the Bible had this one thing in common
4 obscure OT passages sometimes used to diminish women
Paul’s Theology of Ministry

artigos em portugues sobre igualdade entre homens e mulheres no lar e na igreja

30 thoughts on “Does Isaiah 3:12 show that women leaders are a bad thing?

  1. The Hebrew word for rule in Isaiah 3:12 is ‘mashal’. It is the exact same word used in Genesis 3:16 when God tells Eve, your husband will rule (mashal) over you.

    Because both these verses where spoken as a grave consequence of sin and turning away, I believe they are pointing us to the greater truth that humans beings are not called to rule over each other. Rulership meaning a person who has supreme power or sovereignty over others instead we’re called to love, lead and serve one another in a spirit of honor.

    People trying to cherry pick bible verses to use as “evidence” barring women from leadership will eventually find themselves on the wrong side of history, in the same group as those who staunchly opposed women’s right to vote and enter into medical schools & law schools etc in the early 1900’s. It’s only a matter of time! Keep up the excellent detailed work Ms. Marg, we appreciate it.

    1. Thanks for picking up on that, Michelle.

      Before the Fall, both men and women were given the command to rule and have dominion (different Hebrew verbs than mashal) over the animals, but not over each other. A relationship where one person rules another person (whatever the verb) is a result of sin in the world.

      The verb mashal that we have in Genesis 3:16 and Isaiah 3:12 is also found in Proverbs 22:7 which has echoes of Isaiah 3: “The rich rule (mashal) over the poor, and the borrower is a slave to the lender.”

      1. Hello Michelle
        At the beginning it wasn’t so God did not change the punishment it is still in place today. Just as Gal: 6-7

        ” For God is Not mocked whatever a man soweth that shall he also reap.

        ( when we make choices, we cannot control the consequences, )

        Gal:3, says that we are all one in Christ Jesus we have neither male nor female, ”

        but this does not mean administrations, only that we are one in Christ, the same belief, and the same hope! The woman was in the Sin first, God punishment doesn’t change, the consequence of that sin is still in place, the only difference is now! We are forgiven.

        1. I see no reason for men and women today, especially those who are followers of Jesus Christ, to be punished for the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus’s death on the cross has dealt with sin–past, present and future.

          There are several Bible verses that tell us that Jesus has atoned for sin and takes away sin.
          ~ “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29
          ~ “But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Hebrews 9:26
          ~ “He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” John 1:3-5

          We are responsible for our own behaviour. We will experience the consequences, good or bad, from our own good or bad actions (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6), but we are not responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin. God does not hold us responsible for the sins of our parents or ancestors (cf. Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6: Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:19-20).

          1. Hi Marg

            With all due respect. God is unchanging and His word is too.

            Women, according to God’s word (not your opinion, dear) should keep at home, love their husbands and their children, and be silent in church.

            Remember everything He commands of us is for our good, and is not too hard to follow.

            I think we should be a little careful not to bring worldly feminist opinion into God’s matters, for what use does light have to do with darkness.

          2. Hi Sharon, Inspired by your comment, I’ve drawn up a list of Bible women who didn’t keep at home. There is no hint of criticism against them. In fact, they are all presented in a positive light in the Bible.

    2. Hi Michelle
      I believe Genesis 3:16 talks about submission, Ephesians 5:22. Paul again strictly commands the women not to teach in the church. Husband are priesthood meaning to be the Head and women are the church and in that order. I believe it is not in God’s agenda for a woman to lead a man. It is against the law of Jesus.

      1. Hi Munyaradzi,

        Here is some information in response to your comment.

        Genesis 3:16: In Genesis 3:16, God foretells that man will rule woman, but he does not mention “submission.” The rule of man over woman is a consequence of sin entering the world. It is not part of God’s ideal plan for humanity and he does not say one way or the other, that women are to submit to this rule. What God does say is that the woman’s desire will be for her husband or, possibly, for a husband, despite the consequences of the fall.

        Jesus came, however, to deal with the sin problem, and in this new era (post-resurrection and post-Pentecost) there is now again the possibility of the unity, harmony and equality between people that there was before the fall. Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that before the fall, all humanity had the same status, the same authority, and the same purpose.

        Priesthood: The Bible nowhere says that husbands are priests. In the New Covenant, both men and women are to function as priests, with Jesus Christ as our high priest. Followers of Jesus do not need another person acting as a priest as we all have access to God through Jesus as well as the Holy Spirit. There is one mediator between God and humanity (redeemed men and women), and it is not a husband, it is Jesus.

        The Law of Jesus and Leadership: Jesus says nothing at all about a woman leading. But he does tell Mary Magdalene to tell the brothers the momentous news that Jesus had risen. And it is because of the Samaritan’s woman’s words that many came to Jesus and were saved. All of Jesus’ words about leading are about being humble and being a servant and about not taking a prestigious title. Jesus simply never says that women cannot lead. More about Jesus on leadership here: https://margmowczko.com/jesus-teaching-on-leadership-and-community-in-matthews-gospel/

        Paul’s Words to Women: Paul, likewise also never says that women cannot lead. Paul does not exclude women from his general teaching on ministries, ministries that include teaching and leading (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:1ff; Eph. 4:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:26; Col. 3:16).

        Paul only silences certain women in the Corinthian church who wanted to learn but who needed to keep their questions for home (1 Cor. 14:34-35). In fact, Paul silences three groups of disorderly people in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40.

        And Paul tells Timothy he is not allowing a woman in the Ephesian church to teach, she needs to learn, and he is not allowing her to domineer a man, probably her husband (1 Tim. 2:11-12). I have several articles on both 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here and here.

        Finally, here’s a short post on Ephesians 5:22: https://margmowczko.com/ephesians-522-33-in-a-nutshell/

        1. All in the New Testament it tells the women to submit. Again you are misleading people.

          1. There are four passages where wives are told to be submissive to their own husbands. And there are two passages where all followers of Jesus, male and female, are told to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5 NKJV). Submission, like humility and meekness, is a Christian virtue for men and for women.

            Nevertheless, God never tells women, or Eve, to be submissive in Genesis, and Jesus never tells women to be submissive in the Gospels. It is Paul and Peter who say this to Greco-Roman wives.

  2. Excellent article thanks.

  3. The Geneva Bible says, “and babes shall rule over them”., not ” women shall rule over them. Some commentaries on more modern versions, KJ and versions based on the KJ, say that the term “women” is referring to weak men. In both ancient Israel and medevial Europe , to compare a man to a woman was an insult. From what I’ve read, King James himself had a pretty low opinion of women, in general.

    1. Hi Nancy,

      In the copy of the Geneva Bible I’ve used it has: “And I will appoint children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them” in Isaiah 3:4.

      But it has “Children are extortioners of my people, and women have rule over them . . .” in Isaiah 3:12.

  4. Hi Marg, This is another example of knowing the 3 ‘c’s’when it comes to interpreting Scripture,i.e.circumstances,culture and context. Remember Jesus said ‘out of the mouth of babes’,Matt 21:16.The probem here is a topsy-turvy society that was being punished by God and women who were unqualified both in character and doctrine were usurping authority like those in Ephesus(there is evidence of ‘hetairi’,high class prostitutes in the time 1 Timothy was written).So what has changed? This in no way precludes godly women from teaching. God bless, Warwick

    1. Love the 3 Cs.

      It’s interesting that “babes” and “women” are mentioned in a disparaging way in Isaiah 3, but that Jesus elevated both.

      Jesus welcomed children, told people they need to become like small children, and he even became a babe himself for a while. Extraordinary.

  5. In my own studies of the Old Testament, I generally turn first to the Septuagint to see what has been written there. Not only is that translation the oldest (esp. as compared to the Masoretic text), many of the Savior’s sayings recorded in the Gospels contain literal, word-for-word quotes from the Greek OT. The Gospel writers themselves frequently quote the Greek OT, using precisely the same syntax and grammar. I have many times encountered an English rendering in the Old Testament and, when I’ve compared what the modern translator has provided to the reader in that passage, I discover a rendering taken from the Greek OT vice the Hebrew, and this almost always without any reference note to declare that the translator has followed the LXX rather than the Masoretic text. What is my point? My point is that we should always remember that translations are just that–translations. Further, they virtually always reflect–to greater or lesser extent–the biases of those who make them. I am not at all surprised that when it comes to Isaiah 3:12, the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint differ greatly.

  6. Political correctness has infiltrated every phase life, many churches included. The simple principle of gender roles has been ignored by weak men and those wanting to please feminists. Isaiah 3:12 is clear in every version and translation.

    1. Isaiah 3:12 is clear in every version and translation? Also these?

      “As for my people—oppressors strip them and swindlers rule them. My people—your leaders mislead you and confuse your paths.” Common English Bible

      “Money-lenders strip my people bare, and usurers lord it over them. O my people! your guides lead you astray and confuse the path that you should take.” New English Bible

      Moneylenders oppress my people, and their creditors cheat them. My people, your leaders are misleading you, so that you do not know which way to turn.” Good News Translation

      “Oppressors treat my people cruelly; creditors rule over them. My people’s leaders mislead them; they give you confusing directions.” NET Bible

      “My people, your exactors are gathering you up; and those who demand payback are lording it over you; my people, those who bless you are deceiving you, and they are disturbing the path of your feet.” Lexham English Septuagint (LES)

  7. So then… Having looked at various English translations of Isaiah 3:12, argued about the correct rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts, and discussed the impact of historic culture a bit as it pertains to gender perceptions, can we now look at the remainder of what the prophet records in this passage (which ends at Isaiah 4:6)? Let’s begin at verse 16 and see what God is saying. Along the way, let’s be sure to determine if gender has anything to do with our understanding of the message. Afterwards, we can apply what we’ve learned to the context overall and see if it affects our interpretation and understanding of Isaiah 3:12. When we’ve done all this, we can then see if there’s any application of the specific message to the cultural paradigm all of us currently experience.

    1. It just sounds like a lot of work about one verse that I can’t see is significant or has much bearing on life today. But that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in what you come up with. I, like you, also check the Septuagint, because ancient copies of the LXX predate our oldest copies of the Hebrew texts by several hundreds of years.

  8. Hi Marg,

    I’ve just read your article and noticed that to Isa. 3:1-2, you have ascribed the words “the mighty man and mighty woman” based on a Septuagint interpretation and then contextualised the rest of the passage to suit. I’ve just referenced that with a Septuagint translation and it found it not to be the case. Please see online reference below.

    While I am very passionate about men and women using their gifts in ministry, please be admonished to keep within the divine counsels of God’s word for the sake of the salvation of souls and the glory of God.

    1 Tim. 3:1-3, 5
    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; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

    1. I’m not following your point, Andrew.

      I haven’t based “mighty man and mighty woman” on an interpretation. Rather, it is a justifiable translation of the masculine and feminine accusative singular participles ἰσχύοντα and ἰσχύουσαν. Brenton’s LXX translation, that you’ve linked to, also has “mighty man and mighty woman” in verse 1. Though, I do acknowledge that any translation involves a degree of interpretation.

      Isaiah 3:2 in the Septuagint contains the Greek word πρεσβύτερος (“elder”) along with other descriptions of mighty men and women such as “judge and prophet” (cf. Deborah). I’ve quoted both verse 1 and verse 2 accurately in my article. Note that Isaiah 3:1-3 is probably one sentence in the Greek text.

      As you may know, the Greek masculine gender can be used generically for men and women (e.g., John 3:16), but verse 1 in Isaiah 3 makes it explicit that women are included.

      I’ve explained the context of Isaiah 3:1ff fairly and faithfully in the article. It is not about church leaders or church elders. It’s also not about the leaders or elders of the Sanhedrin. (A Christian assembly, i.e. a church, and the Sanhedrin are mentioned in the limited information you copied and pasted from Strong’s about New Testament usage of the adjective πρεσβύτερος, α, ον.)

      Isaiah 3:1ff is about the leaders of Judah who lived hundreds of years before the church or the Sanhedrin existed. Isaiah 3 was written in the eighth century BC. The earliest record we have of the Sanhedrin dates to first century BC, 57 BC to be precise. (Josephus Antiquities. 14.5.4). And the church began in the first century AD, at Pentecost in the early 30s.

      I don’t understand why you are making this about church elders. I’m not. Apart from my quotation of Isaiah 3:2, I don’t mention elders in the article. And I certainly don’t mention church elders. In fact, I don’t mention the church at all and I quote from the New Testament only once in the entire article.

      But since you have brought up 1 Timothy 3, you may be interested to know that the moral qualifications for an ἐπίσκοπος (“supervisor”) of the Ephesian church, given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, doesn’t include the word πρεσβύτερος (“elder”).
      This article may be a good place to start as it looks at the phrase “husband of one wife.”

      If you wish to comment again, Andrew, please make sure your comment is directly related to the article. If you wish to discuss church elders, you can leave a comment in response to an article that is about church elders. However, please make sure you understand the article before responding to it. It will save a lot of time.

      Finally, please be assured that I am very careful to understand the Bible and abide by its divine counsel.

      1. Ridiculous and pompous to say: ‘be admonished’ … don’t be foolish Andrew. If you disagree, disagree with respect.

  9. The bible you refer to is translated to please the women in congregation. Original text are found in King James original version.
    The other thing to consider is that Gods word has no interpretation. Interpretation comes from satan and from those that would like to have it written to suit their lifestyles.

    1. G.C. The original texts (the actual manuscripts written by the original authors of the Bible) have disintegrated over the thousands of years since they were first penned. They are long gone, but we do possess ancient copies of the Bible’s books and letters written in the original languages.

      The Book of Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew. The King James Bible is an English translation and is not original in any way.

      I refer to several English translations in the article: CEB, GNT, NASB, NEB, NET, NIV, NRSV, Geneva Bible (1599). None of them have a feminine bias. I also refer to the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew into Greek before the church existed. And I refer to the Aramaic Targum which was not written for the church.

  10. Thank you!! I am so glad to have found your site. I intend to read more as I have time. i appreciate the help untangling the Scriptural understanding of women from the cultural overlays

  11. There is no mention of mighty women in Is 3:2 in the Septuagint…..

    1. Hi Jeff,

      As I say in the article, “mighty woman” is a translation of Isaiah 3:1 LXX. (I don’t say it’s in Isaiah 3:2.)

      Here’s a translation of Isaiah 3:1 from the LXX
      “Behold now, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Jerusalem and from Judea the mighty man (ἰσχύοντα) and mighty woman (ἰσχύουσαν), the strength of bread, and the strength of water …” You can check here.
      You can check the Greek here.

      Even though “mighty woman” doesn’t occur in 3:2, it’s important to read 3:1 with 3:2 and the following verses to gain a sense of the context.


  13. […] Paul’s instructions in Titus 2, about what the older women in Crete should teach the younger women, come up from time to time in conversations about women’s “roles.” (See Sharon’s comment here, for example.) The idea that women are to be “keepers at home” (KJV), “workers at home” (CSB), or “busy at home” (NIV) is one phrase that is often highlighted and emphasised. […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?