God’s Design for Women In Ministry

God’s design for women in ministry is an extensive, beautiful, indispensable, and unfortunately highly controversial subject in Christianity.  It is especially controversial in regard to teaching and authority in the church.  Nevertheless, it is addressed in Scripture and 1 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”  To ignore or play down this topic is to avoid the God breathed truth and to stifle the blessed growth it is meant to produce.

The desire of this paper is to provide explanation and clarity on a topic that can often be seen as controversial.

A HISTORY OF WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Prior to the Fall

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” – Genesis 1:27

Men and women have the same source (God) and purpose (to display the glory of God as his image-bearer).  Their value is distinguished from all other forms of created life (Gen. 2:7), yet indistinguishable between one another before God.

The creation account teaches us that Adam was created first, then God created Eve to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20; 1 Cor. 11:9).  Eve was much needed (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7) because it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18).  Eve’s God-given perfect role was equal in value to Adam’s, yet different.   She was not made to be his leader or co-leader (see Section E Objection 24 for further explanation), but as the text says, Adam’s helper.  This equal, yet submissive, position is immediately evident when Adam names Eve (Gen. 2:23; 3:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3, 7-10).  This is a submissive role, but not a second-rate one.

Throughout Jesus’s entire earthly ministry, He was submissive to God the Father (Jn 6:38; Lk 22:42; 1 Cor. 15:28; Heb. 10:7, see also Section B Part 2 for further explanation of this).  Yet this role was not second-rate.   Jesus was still God in the flesh, one with God the Father and worthy of worship (Isa. 9:6; Matt 1:23; Jn. 1:1-2; 14:9-10; Jn 10:30; 17:21; 1 Jn 10:40; Matt 8:2; 14:33).  The Holy Spirit, who is also called the Helper (Jn. 14:15-18), was sent by, and submitted to the Father and Jesus (Jn 14:15-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8; Rom 8:26-27).  The Holy Spirit continues in this submission today. Yet this submissive role was/is not second-rate.  The Holy Spirit is God and one with God the Father and Jesus Christ and worthy of worship (Acts 5:3-4; Matt. 28:19-20; Heb. 3:7-9 with Ex. 16:7).  God is triune.  He is one God, yet three persons, and each of those persons are equally God.  Yet as Scripture clearly teaches there is leadership and submission in the Trinity.  The Father leads and the Son willingly submits.  In turn, the Holy Spirit willingly submits to the Son and Father.  The submissive role is not a second-rate role.  It is a role Jesus and the Holy Spirit have willingly taken within the Godhead.

In the church all members are of equal value before God (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28).  They are all His chosen and eternal children bought with the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Eph. 1:4, 1 Pt. 1:18-19). The pastor, elder or deacon is not more valuable to God than anyone else in the church.  Every Christian is an indispensable, prized member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:14-23).  However, not all members of the body of Christ have the same role (1 Cor 12:27-31).  And this God-ordained difference, like amongst the Trinity, creates a leadership structure among equals where humble leadership and willing submission is required.  For example, the Elders are not of more value, but they are called to lead (1 Pt. 5:1-4).  Someone that is not an elder is not of lesser value, but is called to submit (except in regard to sin) to the elders’ leadership (1 Pt. 5:5; Heb. 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12).  Submission is not a second-rate role.  It is a God ordained part of the church body that all believers are a part of.

Within the Family structure parents and children are of equal value before God (Ps. 127:3-5; Pr. 1:8-9; Matt. 18:10; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-16).  However, like within the Trinity and Church, God has established a leadership structure within the family.  Parents are to lead with righteousness and love (Duet. 6:4-9; Pr. 1:8-9; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).  Children (in all things not sinful) are to willingly submit to their parents (Ex. 20:12; Eph 6:1-3).  Submission is not a second-rate role.  It is a God ordained part of the family structure.

Like there is leadership structure within the Trinity, Church, and family unit, God created a leadership structure between Adam and Eve.  Adam was created to lead, and Eve to be a vital helper.  Subsequently, wives submitting to their husbands as their willing and vital helper, and men leading was part of God’s sinless and perfect creation and plan (cf. Eph. 5:22-33). It was designed by God and designated “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

After the Fall

Adam and Eve’s sin led to devastating consequences (Gen. 3:16–19). The sin of Eve led to pain in childbirth and a destructive desire to abandon her role as helper and oppose her husband’s leadership. In Genesis 3:16 God said to the woman, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband.” The phrase “desire shall be contrary” comes from a Hebrew word that is only used one other place in the Pentateuch (First five books of the Old Testament).  In the very next chapter, Genesis 4:7, Moses uses the same word to describe the desire of sin to gain control/rulership over Cain.

Also, as a result of the fall, men are all sinful and can cultivate a sinful desire to abuse their authority through harsh, unjust or absent leadership.  As a result of the Fall, the battle of the sexes has ensued and wreaked havoc ever since.  Women have sought to abandon their submissive role as vital helpers to instead control/rule over their husbands, while men simultaneously abuse or neglect their God given authority (for further explanation on men’s abuse or neglect see Section E Objection 25).

Important to note, when we observe the Fall in the New Testament, who does scripture say is ultimately responsible?  Who does sin come through and pollute the whole human race?  It is Adam (“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man” Rom. 5:12-21).   Adam did not sin first, nor was he deceived (1 Tim. 2:14).  He willingly disobeyed and was held responsible because he was the God-designated leader in the Garden.

For the Rest of the Old Testament

Women played a key and beautiful role throughout the Old Testament.  In Exodus 1:15-22, the mid-wives of Israel showed God-powered courage when they rebelled against Pharoah’s commands to kill the new-born males of Israel.  Moses’ mother bravely hid Moses from the soldiers of Pharoah (Ex. 2:1-10). Miriam also helped preserve Moses when he was an infant (Ex. 2:1-10) and led the women of Israel in jubilant God-honoring praise upon Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (Ex. 15:20-21). Rahab saved the lives of the Jewish spies who carried vital information for Israel’s future military victory over Jericho (Josh. 2. Heb. 11:31). Esther was used by God to rescue Israel from impending genocide.  Ruth’s faithfulness to Naomi was a tremendous representation of God’s unfailing faithfulness.  Hannah’s prayer was used by God to display His wondrous grace and power for the hurting and humble (1 Sam. 1).  Abigail showed us what fearless and godly discernment looks like (1 Sam. 25).  The list of vital roles that women play in the Old Testament is extensive.  The value of women, like men, was/is nothing less than priceless.

The Old Testament Scripture teaches us that women have equal spiritual value to God; that men and women were given the responsibility to obey the law of God (Ex. 20) and raise their children in the admonition of the Lord (Deut. 6:6-7, Proverbs 6:20); that men and women were told to participate in the festivals, and national celebrations of God (Ex. 12, Duet 12:10-12, 1 Sam. 1, 1 Sam. 6); that both men and women were given the opportunity to take the greatest vow, the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:2); that prayer to God was for both men and women (1 Sam. 1); that women had inheritance rights like men (Num. 36:1-12); that God directly dealt with men and women (Gen. 16:8–13, Judg. 13:2–5); and that with men, women praised God (Ex. 15; Neh. 7:67).

The Old Testament Scriptures clearly proclaimed that women are of equal spiritual value to men.  At the same time, godly women held a helpful role and submitted to men as they followed God.  This pattern is clear in regard to the initial patriarchs of Israel: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  This pattern is continued with the 12 Patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Israel.  Following the patriarchs, the leaders of the exodus and conquest were Moses, Aaron and Joshua.  Moses appointed only men to lead over Israel (Exodus 18; Duet. 1:9-18). No woman served as priest or wrote an Old Testament book.  The judges, with one exception, were all men (This exception will be addressed in Section E Objection 3.).  The major public prophets (Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) were all men.  All the minor writing prophets were men.  No queen ever legitimately ruled over Israel or Judah (See Section E Objection 2 for further explanation).  In fact, Isaiah 3 says that God allowed women to rule at various times as part of His judgment on a rebellious nation (See Section E Objection 25 for further explanation).  And Isaiah 3:16-26 communicates the devastating disaster that judgement brings.  As Eve was created to help Adam, the godly women of the Old Testament were indispensable God-empowered helpers of godly men. (1 Peter 3:5-6).

A HISTORY OF WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Role of Women in the Gospels

Alongside Zechariah, Elizabeth was described as righteous, and walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord (Lk. 1:6).  When Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist she recognized and celebrated the work of God (Lk 1:25).  An angel visited Mary, called her a favored one of God, and told her that she would give birth to Jesus (Lk 1:26-38).  Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she spoke to Mary (Lk 1:41-45).  Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit when she gave thanks to God in Luke 1:46-56.  All over the Gospels we see women involved in the work of God as spiritual equals to men in God’s sight.

Contrary to Jewish practice at the time, Jesus taught men and women (Matt. 6:34; 7:25-29; 10:34, 38-42; 13:33; 14:21 22:1–2; 24:41; Luke 15:8–10).  In the Gospel of John the first time Jesus revealed He was the Messiah was to a Samaritan woman (Jn. 4).  Jesus healed both men and women (Mk. 5:25-34; 7:24-30 Lk. 6:19; 13:10-17).   Like the disciples, women traveled with Jesus and financially supported His ministry (Luke 8:1–3).  It was a woman who anointed Jesus prior to his death (Jn. 12:1-7). Upon His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to a woman (Jn. 20:1–18).  Jesus, like in the Old Testament, saw and treated men and women as spiritual equals.  Both were vital recipients and partakers in His ministry.

Regarding the differing roles of men and women, it is important to note that (in alignment with the Old Testament) none of the twelve apostles Jesus trained were women.  Dr. Alexander Staunch has great insight concerning this fact:

For the Bible-believing Christian, the primary example of male leadership is found in the person  of Jesus Christ. The most obvious point is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God, not the daughter of God. His maleness was not an arbitrary matter. It was a theological necessity, absolutely  essential to His person and work. Jesus was and had to be a first-born male, “holy to the Lord” (Luke 2:23). As the “last Adam” and “the second man,” He was the antitype of Adam, not Eve. Therefore, He had to be male (1 Cor. 15: 45,47; Rom. 5: 14). He had to be a first-born son of David and Abraham, the true son of promise— the King, not the queen, of Israel and the Lord, not the lady, of the universe. According to the creation order, Jesus could not be a woman because in the male-female relationship the male     partner alone is invested with the headship-authority role (Gen. 2:20, 22,23; 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:12),  and Jesus Christ alone is Head of the Church and King of kings. He is the model for every male leader.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus personally trained and appointed twelve men whom He called  “apostles” (Luke 6:13). Jesus’ choice of male leadership was an affirmation of the creation order as presented in Genesis 2:18-25. Before choosing the Twelve, Luke informs us that Jesus spent the entire night in prayer with His Father (Luke 6: 12). As the perfect Son, in complete obedience and submission  to His Father’s will, Jesus chose twelve males to be His apostles. Thus, these men were God the Father’s choice. Jesus’ choice of male apostles was based on divine principles and guidance.

Despite His divinely inspired choice of a male apostolate, some critics claim that Jesus was merely accommodating to His culture. But how could anyone read the life of Christ and think that Jesus accommodated His choices of male apostles to the spirit of His age? He was hated and finally crucified because He consistently, on the basis of divine principle, violated the false rabbinic traditions. Even His fiercest enemies had to admit that Jesus spoke the truth of God, fearing and showing partiality to no one (Matt. 22: 16).

Other critics contend that Jesus’ work of redemption abolished all male-female role distinctions. Yet if Jesus intended to abolish all male-female role differences through His work of redemption, the choosing of the Twelve was the crucial moment in history to act and appoint women to the apostolate. As the hailed liberator of women, should Jesus not have chosen six women and six men apostles? At the very least, should He not have chosen one woman apostle? If Jesus is the supreme egalitarian that some   would like Him to be, He surely failed women at a crucial moment. (I speak foolishly to make an obvious point. Of course Jesus never fails!) Instead, by appointing twelve male apostles, Jesus ratified the Old   Testament creation order of male headship, a practice that both Paul and Peter subsequently  maintained.

His appointment of a male apostolate does not deny the fact that Jesus honored the dignity of   women, ministered to women, traveled with them, and encouraged their service for God and Himself in    a way that was quite different from the manner of the religious leaders of His day. Despite His deep  affection and close relationship with a number of women (such as Mary and Martha), the fact remains that Jesus Christ established an all-male apostolic office as the enduring foundation of His Church (Eph. 2: 20; 3: 5; Rev. 21: 14). Even when a replacement for Judas, one of the Twelve, became necessary, only   “men” (Greek, andrōn, Acts 1: 21) were considered. One man was chosen for that position by the Lord  Himself (Acts 1: 24). There is no clear example of a woman apostle in the entire New Testament.

The Twelve followed the example of their Lord and Master by appointing seven men, not seven        men and women, when they needed to establish an official body of servants to care for the church’s  widows and funds (Acts 6: 1-6). Even thirty years after Christ’s ascension into heaven, Peter wrote to the    churches of northwestern Asia Minor and exhorted his Christian sisters to submit to their husbands in   the same way the “holy women” of the Old Testament age did. He also exhorted husbands to care for  their wives and reminded them that their wives were fellow heirs “of the grace of life.” Thus, Peter  continued to follow His Lord’s example and taught both role distinctions and male-female equality:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands…. Let not your adornment be merely external… but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3: 1-6).

You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Peter 3: 7).

Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (pp. 53-56). Lewis & Roth Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Women in the Epistles

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” – Philippians 2:5-8

The word “submit” is a trigger, especially when discussing the roles of women.  It’s often seen a degrading action vile men demand and uniformed, unintelligent women with a tremendous low self esteem give into.  That kind of submission is obviously wrong.  But there is another kind of submission that is biblical.  A type of submission that is for the strong, steadfast, and wise.  This passage is a picture of that biblical submission.  Jesus, due to his humble, selfless love for God the Father and humanity willingly submitted himself to the salvation plan of the Trinity.  To what degree? All the way to the point of death, even death on a cross.  And the result of that biblical submission was salvation for all who trust in Jesus, and the promised exaltation of Jesus.

Biblical submission is what Jesus did.  And everyone, in various ways is called to follow His example.  This paper is about the way, God calls women to follow in the gathering of believers.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

This passage clearly teaches, like the Old Testament and Gospels, that believing men and women are on equal footing before God.  Their value is indistinguishable.

However, some utilize this verse to also say that the roles of men and women, displayed in creation and the rest of the Old Testament, are not applicable within the church.  There are two primary problems with this view.  The first is context.  Verses 13–27 is about the equal access to salvation in Christ.  The passage is not talking about the elimination of roles or differences amongst men and women in the body of Christ.

The second problem is the ramification of this view.  If this verse eliminates the roles of men and women within the Christian community it must eliminate the roles of slaves.  But slaves did not stop being slaves when they became Christians (Eph. 6:5-9; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Pt. 2:18-25).  They were encouraged to be the best slaves they could be and so represent Christ in their circumstance.  In the same way, men and women did not cease to be men and women or to function in their God given roles within the body of Christ (Matt. 19:1-12; Eph. 5:22-33; I Pt. 3:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Cor. 14:33b-35).  Rather, with Christ, they were enabled by the Holy Spirit to function in their God given roles as God desired.

This verse is a tremendous reminder of the indistinguishable value of every believer no matter their ethnicity, societal standing, or sex.  It should encourage every believer to eliminate all degrading comments or actions towards other ethnicity, those of different social standing, and between men and women.  This should also encourage every believer to share their faith with every individual.

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”- 1 Timothy 2:11-14 

This is not the result of women being less talented, intelligent, gifted by God or valuable.  This is a result of the way God created men and women (equal, yet with different roles), and the way sin was initiated in the Garden (1 Tim. 2:13–14). God, through the apostle Paul, limits women from the role of teaching and/or exercising spiritual authority over men in the church gathering (cf. 1 Tim. 3:14-15).

What does it mean when the text says that a woman should “learn quietly with all submissiveness?” It communicates the manner and attitude that women should have when learning the truth.  (In general, this is how everyone learns.  This is not a sexist principal.  When someone is teaching, we listen quietly and submit to instruction.)  This is in perfect alignment with the roles of men and women previously expounded.  Verse 12 gives further clarification on the practical outworking’s of that quietness and submission for women in the church.   It means that women should learn alongside men (This was, unfortunately, an anomaly in the ancient Jewish world), yet should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church gathering (cf. 1 Tim. 3:14-15).  In conjunction with this, there are no women ever recorded giving a sermon or teaching to a church gathering of men and women in the New Testament.  There are no woman apostles or elders whose job it was to exercise authority and to teach.  And there are no women designated by the apostles or elders to teach under their authority to men.

Please note what this does not say.  This does not say a mother cannot discipline or teach her kids.  This does not say a mother cannot give advice to her adult son.  This does not limit women from teaching and exercising authority over other women or children in the church (Titus 2:3-5).  This does not limit participation in singing or prayer when the church gathers.  This does not limit women from exercising other spiritual gifts, the fruit of the Spirit, or serving in a myriad of other areas as God directs.  These verses do not limit women from evangelizing the lost or praying for unbelievers (male or female).   This does not say that a woman cannot write a book,  curriculum, or produce a video that is helpful (See Section E Objection 35-37 for further clarification).  This does not say a woman can never share their testimony, give input and advice, give an announcement, be an usher, be a deacon, help organize ministry, encourage an individual (male or female), speak in tongues or prophesy (however a woman’s prophecy should be limited to outside the assembly of believers, as explained in the next section on 1 Cor. 14:33b-40).  This does not limit a woman from teaching or exercising authority outside the church and in the workplace.  This does not lessen the abundant and necessary impact that believing women can and are commanded to have in the church.  Without women the body of Christ is not complete and cannot function as Jesus, the head of the body, wants it to function.  This is not about value or talent.  This is about how men and women, in alignment with their God-given roles, are to function within the church regarding teaching and exercising authority.  Men are to step up and fulfill these functions.

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.  Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?  If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.  If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.  But all things should be done decently and in order. Or was it from you that the word of God came? “ – 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40

First notice the universal application of this passage.  Verse 33b says, “As in all the churches of the saints.”  This is not a local recommendation based on a culture.  This is for all the churches. This is reinforced at the end of the passage in verses 36-40.  This is also reinforced by 1 Corinthians 4:17 which says, “That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.”  This is also reinforced by 1 Corinthians 7:17, and 1 Corinthians 11:16 that also clearly communicate that what he is saying is applicable to all the churches and from God.

Second notice the support for this principal.  It is communicated in the Law also.  The law is a reference to the Pentateuch. Godly women were to be in willful submission in the Garden and throughout the Old Testament, and the same is encouraged here (I Peter 3:6).   This can also be seen in the discipline of Eve in Genesis 3:16. In this passage, Paul gives an explanation rooted in creation and the curse found in the Law.   He does the same in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 with this prohibition reflecting the unity of Scripture throughout the Old and New Testament.

Third, notice where this is coming from.  It is a “command of the Lord.”   This is not Paul’s personal preference.  This is not a temporal cultural mandate infiltrating the church.  This is God’s command in alignment with previous revelation.

Fourth, notice the ramifications of ignoring the truth this is conveying.  It is “shameful” and demands that person not be “recognized.”  This is not a light topic to be dismissed due to a differing personal preference, experience, tradition, or culture.  It is a topic of dire seriousness.  The word shameful is the same word for disgraceful, improper, or sorted.  It is shameful for a man to function against God’s creative order.

Fifth, notice the reason for the silence.  It is to demonstrate submission.  This aligns with what has already been presented concerning the roles of men and women.

Sixth, notice the responsibility that this places on believing men.  They must be avid students of God’s Word so they can lead their wives and children well.  To be negligent in this area is to fail in their responsibility to their family and local church.

Seventh, notice the context.  Paul is dealing with the gathering of believers and how they are to conduct themselves when the church gathers (1 Cor. 14:26).  And the focus immediately prior to this passage is prophecy and its evaluation during the gathering.  This passage limits prophecy and it’s evaluation to men during the assembly of the church.  As 1 Corinthians 11:3-5 says, women can prophesy in a manner that displays submissiveness to men.  And one of the ways that submissiveness is displayed is when it comes to prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy in the church gathering is to remain silent. He is addressing the roles of men and women established at creation.  Paul, in alignment with all previous revelation, is establishing how those roles play out in the gathering of the body.

As we will be discussed in Section E, Objection 12, this fits with all known examples of women who were prophetesses.  This also fits with what we have seen in the Old Testament and in the New Testament concerning the role of women.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands…However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” – Ephesians 5:22-24, 33

Notice two overarching key points concerning the role of wives. One, it’s perfectly in line with previous revelation.  It aligns with the roles assigned to Adam and Eve.  It aligns with the effect of the curse.   And it aligns with the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament.

Two, notice the word “own.”  The submission of a wife to a husband is personal.  This does not demand the submission of every woman to every man, nor does it eradicate appropriate submission of ladies to others in positions of authority in the church.

Three, notice the word “submit.” To submit does not mean to accept abuse or to be a slave to one’s husband.   The very definition of submit means means “to yield,” or “get in line behind.”  Both the husband and wife are of equal value.  But they each have a role to play.  As the church submits to Christ, the wife submits (except in sin) to her husband.  This does not mean the husbands should not seriously, self-sacrificially, humbly and lovingly consider a wife’s input, knowledge, wisdom, talents, needs and desires.  This demands that husbands step up and lead in a Christlike manner as Ephesians 5:25-32 clearly states.

Four, notice the value that is placed on the wife.  She is compared to the church that Jesus died to save and sanctify.  Her role does not lessen her value.  As Jesus considered the church worth dying for, the man is to consider his wife worth dying for.

Five, notice the all-inclusive nature of this command.  It says “wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”  That is to the obvious exclusion of sin, but nevertheless, a very difficult task.  Men do not always know or do the best thing.  But the difficulty of the command does not eliminate the command.  We are all called to obey Scripture despite the difficulty.  We all need to rely upon the Holy Spirit to help us to discern and obey His commands.

Again, this is all in alignment with the roles of women and men presented throughout the Old and New Testament.

1 Peter 3:1-6 – “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.  For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”

Notice several key points regarding the role of women.  First, they are to be subject to their own husbands.  This is in perfect alignment with the creation account prior to the fall (Gen. 2:18), and all that we have seen in the Old and New Testament.  This does not exclude appropriate submission to leaders established by God outside the marital relationship.

Second, notice the tremendous effect a submissive wife can have.  It is nothing short of astounding.  Without a word, she may win (even a husband that is disobedient to the Word) her husband to repentance and growth in Christ with respectful and pure conduct.

Third, notice the focus of the wife that wins her husband.  It is not on the external, it is on the gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.  It’s on submitting to God by submitting to her husband as Sarah did.

Fourth, notice the extent to which Sarah displayed her submissive heart.  She called him lord.  That demonstration of respect must have been extremely difficult because Abraham was by no means perfect.  But nevertheless, that is the legacy she left.

Fifth, notice the call to be fearless while submitting.  Submitting to another person, especially your husband may feel risky to say the least.  Husbands make mistakes, lack knowledge and wisdom, and are not powerful enough to protect their wives from all danger.  It requires faith to submit.  But wives are called to trust God and fulfill their role as women in this manner.  It is honorable for a woman to submit in this way.

Lastly, this passage functions in conjunction with all that we’ve noted thus far in the Old And New Testament.

CONCLUSION

Men and women are of equal indispensable value, and each is to strive to function (by the grace of God and power of the Holy Spirit) within the God given roles established in God’s perfect creative order.  In specific regard to teaching and exercising authority over men in the church gathering, women are to refrain.  In conjunction, men are called to step-up and provide the teaching and leadership the body of Christ needs to grow.

APPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN IN MINISTRY

The Gathering of believers includes a worship service, funerals (on site), weddings (on site), Sunday schools (Mixed with Adult and/or Youth), Connect Groups (Mixed with Adult and/or Youth), Legacy, Youth Group (when Mixed), and all other church sponsored classes or ministries (Mixed with Adult and/or Youth).

Every role within the Gathering is open to both men and women, except the roles of prophecy, evaluation of prophecy, preaching, teaching, leading a worship service, and officiating the ordinances (baptism/the Lord’s Supper).  Those are restricted to elders, pastors, and qualified men.  Mixed-gender teaching environments are to be overseen by elders, served by the deacons, and led by an elder, pastor or a qualified man. These men should seek out and utilize other gifted godly men and women to help facilitate these ministries.

When a female missionary (with or without spouse) comes she will be encouraged to testify/share in all gatherings about what God has done, is doing, and potentially will do in the future.  However, she will not prophecy, evaluate prophecy, preach, teach, lead the service, or officiate the ordinances.

When the opportunity to partner with another church, individual, or parachurch organization comes and they do not align with the elders on this issue (and/or other issues), the elders will seek the Lord for wisdom.  Then they will make a decision based on a case-by-case basis of which ministries to bring to the congregation for partnership.

COMMON OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPLEMENTARIAN VIEW OF WOMEN IN MINISTRY

Below we will seek to list out and correct some of the most common arguments we hear raised today.

Objection: What about Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, Junia, Euodia and Syntyche?

Response: In Acts 18, Priscilla and her husband Aquilla privately shared the Gospel to Apollos.  The passage does not say that Priscilla was or became an apostle, elder or pastor.  Nor does it say that she taught in the church gatherings.  This was a personal evangelistic conversation to someone who is not a believer, separate from the gathering of believers.  Apollos only knew of the baptism of Jesus, not His saving work on the cross.  The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 on women teaching and/or leading in the church does not prohibit personal conversation over spiritual truth or personal evangelism to unbelievers.

Paul also mentions Pricilla and her husband, Aquilla, in Romans 16:3-5 where they are both called fellow workers and commended for hosting the church in their house.  But none of that passage tells that Pricilla taught or exercised authority over men.   Everyone at FBC is a fellow worker for the Gospel, but not everyone teaches at the church gathering.

Phoebe’s service is celebrated, as it should be, by Paul in Romans 16.  However, she is never said to teach or exercise authority.  She is a tremendous servant that blessed Paul and others with her finances.  Since the Greek word for servant and deacon is the same, she may have been a deacon.  But even if that is the case, teaching was not a qualification or requirement for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-3; Titus 1:6-9).

Junia is mentioned in Romans 16:7 which says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”  First note, no one knows for sure if Junia is a man or a woman’s name.  Also, some translations do read, “outstanding among the apostles” or some variation thereof instead of “well known to the apostles.” Those are valid translations.  And that could mean one of two things.  One, the apostles considered Junia a great individual.  Or it could mean that Junia was considered a great apostle.  Both readings are possible.  Whether or not this is a man or a woman and whether or not Junia is well known by or one of the apostles are two vital unknowns.  Thus, this is not a firm foundation for any view to stand on.

Lydia was led to the Lord by Paul (Acts 16:11-15).  Afterwards she and her whole family became believers and were baptized.  Then she invited Paul and those who were with him to stay at her house.  Later, after Paul and Silas were rescued from the Philippi jail, they visited Lydia and the fellow Christians that were at her house (Acts 16:40). There is nothing from the text or history that teaches us that Lydia taught or exercised authority over men in the church in Philippi. She may have hosted the church in her house, but that does not mean she taught or exercised authority over men.  The text simply tells us that she was hospitable and was to be commended for it.

Paul said of Euodia and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2-3 that they “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers.”  That is a beautiful picture.  Both men and women working together to advance the Gospel.  But that text does not say that Euodia and Syntyche taught men or held authority over men in the church gathering.  It simply says that they worked together to advance the gospel as men and women should.  And that can be done in more ways than teaching or exercising authority over men at the gathering of believers.

Every believer is called a partaker in the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  However, that does not mean that believers function the same way the Holy Spirit functions.  The believer is not God.  The believer does not enter into individuals and change a person’s heart like the Holy Spirit does.  Yet, the believer, as they are called, partake in the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  In the same way, Euodia and Syntyche partaking, partnering or contending by Paul’s side does not mean that they become apostles as Paul was, or that they taught or exercised authority over men in the church gathering.   To say so is to go beyond the text.  The passage means that they, like we all should, sought to advance the gospel together as the Holy Spirit has gifted and according to Scripture.

Objection: What about Esther, Ruth and Atailiah?

Response: Esther was a fantastic queen of Babylon to be celebrated by all believers. But she was not the ruling monarch, did not teach, and did not rule over Israel. Ruth was a tremendous example of loyalty to God and His people.  And in tandem with that loyalty, she submitted to Boaz.  She did not teach or exercise authority. Athaliah was the only women to sit on the throne over Israel.   However, her rule was not legitimate.  She became queen by attempting to kill off all the rightful heirs (2 Kings 11: 1). But when the rightful king, Joash, came back, Athaliah was rightly removed and executed (11: 13–16). Her reign and fall is an example of Isaiah 3 which speaks of women ruling over God’s people to the shame of sinful men.

Objection: What about Deborah (Judg. 4-5)?

Response: John Piper and Wayne Gruden offer an insightful response in their book 50 Crucial Questions: Deborah, a prophetess, judge, and mother in Israel (Judg. 4:4; 5:7), along with Jael (Judg. 5:24-27), was a living indictment of the weakness of Barak and other men in Israel who should have been more courageous leaders (Judg. 4:9). (The period of the judges is an especially precarious foundation for building a vision of God’s ideal for leadership. In those days God was not averse to bringing about states of affairs that did not conform  to His revealed will in order to achieve some wise purpose [cf. Judg. 14:4].) (Pg. 34)

In conjunction with that, Isaiah 3 indicates that God allowed women to rule as part of His judgment on the sinning nation.  When Deborah was judging Israel that was indeed the case (Judges 4:1-4).  Moreover, the judges in Israel were national deliverers more than officers with constituted authority.

Also, we have to remember that the narrative of Scripture is not always prescriptive.  In other words, just because Abraham was a man of God that had multiple wives (never directly rebuked for this) we don’t say that all men of God should have multiple wives.  It is not prescriptive.  Just because Enoch and Elijah never died, and some are going to be raptured, does not mean we throw out the overwhelming and clearly communicated biblical truth, “It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement” (Heb. 9:27; Gen. 3:19).  Just because John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in Elizabeth’s womb (Lk. 1:15), we do not throw out the clear teaching that non-Christians do not have the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is received by all upon salvation in the church age (Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13).

Another way to say this is, we do not practice “red light theology.”  No one is supposed to go through red lights.  It is against the law.  However, in an emergency cops, firefighters, and paramedics can go through red lights.  But that exception does not destroy the overwhelming rule concerning red lights.  To do so would be clear “red light heresy” and the consequences would be dire.  In turn, because Deborah was used by God to the shame of sinful men during a period of rebellion, does not mean we throw out the overwhelming truth concerning roles that the Old and New Testament provides.

Also, it is important to note that we do not know the way Deborah prophesied.  We know that she asked Barak about the orders God had given him (Judg. 4:4-7).  And as a result of Barak not taking the initiative on his own, the glory of the battle would be given to Jael.  Which would be to the shame of Barak’s failed leadership (Judg. 4: 9, 21– 22; 9: 53– 54).

Also, when the new covenant is established in the New Testament you are entering into another dispensation.  And in that dispensation teaching and exercising authority over men within the church gathering is clearly prohibited.  It is not descriptive truth, but prescriptive truth in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Objection: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 allows women to teach men with the permission and oversight of the elders.

Response: This objection/idea adds qualifications to the text that are not in it or anywhere else.  Some call this reading between the lines which is another expression of eisegesis.  It ignores the fact that this is a prohibition against two things, teaching and/or exercising authority over men in the church.  And following one prohibition does not erase the need to follow the other (See also Objection 7 for further explanation).

Objection: The terms “Teaching” and “exercising authority” (in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) are really talking about one topic. They are talking about teaching with authority.  Thus, you can make a distinction between women teaching under authority and women teaching on their own authority.  Therefore, women can teach under authority to men, but they can’t teach men without having been given authority to men. 

Response: A thorough study of the Greek conjunction (oude) between “to teach” and “exercising authority” means “or” or “nor” as translated in the KJV, NKJV, WYC, ESV, NASB, NASB 1995, NASB 1997, NET, LSB, NIV, NLT, BSB, BLB, CSB, HCSB, ASV, CSV, DRT, GNT, LSV, NAB, NRSV, etc. The two topics are related.  But their relationship does not eliminate their distinction. This is clearly supported by the Greek structure of the sentence.  As George Knight explains:

 “Oὐδέ joins the second infinitive to the first under οὐϰ ἐπιτϱέπω, whose negative is now conveyed in οὐδέ itself. Robertson (Grammar, 1185) indicates that “in accord with the copulative use of δέ we frequently have οὐδέ and μηδέ in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with no idea of contrast” (cf., e.g., Mt. 6:26). Therefore, οὐδέ here may be rendered “nor” (KJV, NEB) or for English stylistic reasons “or” (NASB, RSV,      TEV, NIV). Knight, George W.. The Pastoral Epistles (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) (p.      267). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.).

In addition, as William Mounce writes:

The problem with this is that διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν are separated by five words; words forming a     hendiadys are usually side by side since the construction is used “to avoid a series of dependent genitives”    (BDF § 442[ 16])… Payne argues that the conjunction οὐδέ links not two unrelated terms but two related concepts in order to convey a “single coherent idea” (“ οὐδέ,” 1). He likens it to the slang connective “’ n” as   in the phrase “hit ’n run” where the two different verbs, “hit” and “run,” describe one event. His translation is built on his conclusion that αὐθεντεῖν means “to domineer.” Payne concludes, “[ οὐδέ] joins together two  elements in order to convey a single coherent idea, or if it conveys two ideas these should be very closely interrelated. Since the two elements joined by οὐδέ in 1 Tim 2:12 are not nearly as closely interrelated as any of the other such pairs of separate ideas in the Pauline corpus, they should be translated as a single  coherent idea” (“ οὐδέ,” 4). However, an examination of Payne’s examples shows that they do not prove his  conclusion (cf. Moo, “What Does It Mean?” 187). For example, Gal 3:28 speaks of Jew and Gentile, slave and free. While they are related concepts and are expressing a coherent idea (i.e., all people), one does not define the other; in fact they are opposites (cf. Rom 11: 21). If 1 Tim 2: 12b is a principle and 2: 12a a specific   application, then they are very closely interrelated and even by Payne’s approach do not support his   conclusion. He also appears to equate a single coherent idea with very closely related events; these are not  the same. 1 Tim 6:16 is helpful. Speaking of God, Paul says, “whom no human has seen or [οὐδέ] is able to see.” The latter is a general principle out of which the former specific historical assertion comes…. It seems therefore that Paul is prohibiting two separate events: teaching and acting in authority. The relationship that exists between the two is that of a principle and a specific application of that principle (cf. Spicq, 1: 379– 80;    Moo, Trinity Journal 1 [1980] 67– 68; Saucy, “Negative Case,” 278). In conclusion: Paul does not want women       to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church.

(Zondervan,. Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 130). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.)

Just as preaching and teaching are related, yet different (One is specific, and the other is general.), so teaching and exercising authority are related, yet         different (One is specific, and the other is general.).  And the syntactical analysis of this conjunction supports this distinction.  This, along with the explanation in Objection 4 and 6 answers this objection.

Objection: There is a difference between preaching and teaching. Preaching is an authoritative form of teaching and just regular teaching is not.  This thought process combined with objections number 9 and 10 lead some to say that pulpit preaching is not okay for women, but teaching in the gathering of believers (like Sunday School) is.

Response: κηρύσσω is the Greek word for preaching.  διδάσκω is the Greek word for teaching.  The Greek word used in 1 Timothy 2:12 is διδάσκω.  1 Timothy 2:12 is a clear prohibition against teaching.

Now, preaching is a specific type of teaching.  It literally means, “to herald.”  It is a bold declaration of truth from the king that teaches the people what the will of the king on a certain issue is and what will happen if the kings will is heeded or disobeyed.  Just imagine a man standing in the town square, unrolling a scroll written by the king and saying, “Hear Ye! Hear Ye! By order of the King…”  It is a type of teaching that is communicated in an authoritative manner.  Preaching is a specific form of teaching.  Thus, this prohibition against teaching is inclusive of preaching.

However, since preaching is teaching done in an authoritative manner, it does not mean that other types of teaching do not carry the same spiritual weight.  In the passage immediately following, are we to presume that the requirement of elders to be able to teach (διδάσκω) is speaking of the ability to communicate truth with lesser weight than preaching (1 Tim. 3:2).  Are we to presume when Paul calls Timothy to teach (διδάσκω) and keep a close watch on teaching throughout the rest of the book (1 Timothy 4:11, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2, 3) that the teaching he is referring to does not carry the same weight as preaching?  When Jesus taught (διδάσκω) in the temple in Matthew 21:3 and multiple other places, was it with less authority than when He preached (κηρύσσω) in Matthew 4:17 and multiple other places.  That is not sound.

James 3:1 says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”  The word for teaching in James 3:1 is, διδάσκω, the same as in 1 Timothy 2:12.  Teaching, regardless of form, does not carry less weight for the body of Christ than preaching.

Also, “the insistence here on silence seems to rule out all these solutions. The clause as a whole describes the status of a woman not in relation to every aspect of the gathered assembly (i.e., praying, prophesying, singing, etc.; cf. again 1 Cor. 11: 5) but specifically in respect to that with which it is contrasted, i.e., teaching (and the exercise of authority), just as the first occurrence of ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ applied to the learning/ teaching situation (v. 11)” (Knight, George W.. The Pastoral Epistles (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) (p. 269). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition).

These reasonings, along with the reasoning presented under objections 4, 5, and 7 answer this objection.

Objection: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is saying women are not allowed to “assume undelegated authority” over men. That women can hold positions of delegated authority to women and subsequently teach men.

Response: This is related to the previous objections and is once again adding to the text.  The verb for “exercise authority” can be translated “assume authority.”  But the concept of the authority being undelegated or delegated is not a part of the word.  It would be only appropriate to add such qualifiers if the surrounding text demanded it.  The surrounding text does not demand it.  Thus, such an assumption goes beyond the text.

John Piper offers an additional explanation in his and Wayne Grudem’s book 50 Crucial Questions:

It is right for all the teaching ministries of the church to meet with the approval of the guardians and overseers (i.e., elders)  of the church.  However, it would be wrong for the leadership of the church to use its authority to sanction the de facto functioning of a woman as a teaching elder in the church, only without name.  In other words, to biblically affirm a woman teaching, two kinds of criteria should be met.  One is to have the endorsement of the spiritual overseers of the church (i.e., elders).  The other is to avoid all context and kinds of teaching that put a woman in the position of functioning as a the de facto spiritual shepherd of a group of men or to avoid the kind of teaching that by its very nature calls for strong, forceful pressing of men’s consciences on the basis of divine authority.  These actions would violate what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12.  A pastor cannot rightfully give permission to do something that scripture forbids, for pastors do not have higher authority than Scripture itself (Pg. 38).

Objection: In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Paul was only restricting women from teaching because, at that time or in that place, women were uneducated.

Response: The passage does not mention educational status.  If education were the issue, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would have been disqualified.  This objection ignores the given reason for this restriction in the following verses (2 Tim. 2:13-15) and supplies its own.  That is eisegesis (reading into the text what a person wants to see) and a disregard for context.  Also, this objection is not historically accurate.  There were women with a secular and/or Biblical education in Ephesus.  Priscilla is a great example (Acts 18:26).  “Also, how ignorant could the Ephesian women be if Paul taught among them day and night for three years” (Acts 20: 31, DeYoung, Kevin. Men and Women in the Church (Kindle Locations 970-971). Crossway. Kindle Edition.).

Objection: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is only a restriction of the role of Ephesian women, but not all women.

Response: Multitudes of female priestesses promoted the sinful worship of Artemis and other false gods in Ephesus.  Based on that fact, some say these verses were a reaction to that specific situation.  But once again, that is eisegesis and a disregard for context.  It is supplying a reason that is not in the text and ignoring the timeless, all-inclusive reason presented in the text for this clear restriction (1 Tim 2:13-14).

In addition, multitudes of men taught and participated in the sinful worship of Artemis and other false god’s.  But Paul does not tell believing men to stop teaching.  If this objection were legitimate, it would only make sense to place the same limitation on the Ephesian men and women and encourage the church in Ephesus to bring in elders from a different area to teach and exercise authority.  But that is not the case.  Timothy was called and encouraged to appoint men to teach and exercise authority as elders with no geographical requirements (1 Tim. 3:1-8).

Also, starting in verse 8, Paul tells us what context that this instruction is for.  It is for “every place,” not just Ephesus whenever the church gathers (2 Tim. 2:8; 3:14-15).

Objection: In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Paul was only forbidding women from false teaching, not all teaching over men.

Response: As before, this is eisegesis and ignoring the text’s supplied reason.  The only time in the pastoral epistles that the Greek word for “teaching” is used to denote false teaching is in Titus 1:11.  And the context of Titus 1:11, not the word itself, makes that determination.  There is no such distinction in this passage.  Also, there is a specific word for false teaching (heterodidaskaleo) that Paul does not use in this passage, but does use in 1 Timothy 1:3 and 6:3.  Also, would Paul stop women, but not men from teaching when all the named false teachers in the Pastoral epistles were men.

Objection: In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the words for “woman” and “man” refer to husbands and wives, not men and women.

Response: The same words for men and women are used in verses 2:8–10 and refer undoubtedly to men and women.  Paul encouraged men, not just husbands, in every place to pray and lift up holy hands without anger or quarreling.  Paul encouraged women, not just wives, to adorn themselves not merely with outward beauty but godly beauty.  There is no syntactical or contextual reason to change the meaning in the following verses.

Objection: Ladies like Miriam and Huldah that prophesy in the Old Testament and New Testament make this view null and void.

Response: The verses at hand, do not say that women cannot prophesy.  Clearly women in the Old and New Testament prophesied and we celebrate that.  But two clarifications must be made.

One, having the gift of prophecy is not the same as teaching or being an apostle or elder.  They are distinguished when spiritual gifts are listed (Rom. 12:6-7; 1 Cor. 12:28).  Also, the function of prophecy is not regular.  As with Amos, it is direct revelation if the Spirit should move.  Teaching is a regular duty, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to explain God’s Word.

Two, in 1 Corinthians 11:5 it clearly indicates that women can prophesy.  But later in 1 Corinthians 11:33b-40, which addresses how church gatherings are to be conducted (and the context is a focus on how, when, and where to prophesy and evaluate prophecy) it says, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.  For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.  For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”  So, women can prophesy, as clearly displayed in the Old and New Testament, but within the gathering of believers, Paul makes it clear that women are not to prophesy or evaluate that prophecy when the church comes together (Important Note:  If 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 limits speaking in tongues and prophecy or only limits women from the evaluation of prophecy to men all these prophetesses are still functioning within 1 Timothy 2:11-12.  They are not teaching or exercising authority over men).

This aligns with what we see concerning Miriam.  Miriam is called a prophetess, but we have no recorded public prophecies.  Exodus 15:20-21 only tells us that she led the women in dancing and a song.  We also have no record of her teaching or exercising authority over men.

This aligns with Huldah’s prophecy in 2 Chronicles 34:23-25.  When she prophesies, she is not in the public gathering.  It is done at the request of a few of Josiah’s advisors and the obvious working of the Holy Spirit.  In addition, there is no record of Huldah teaching or exercising authority over men.

Isaiah’s wife was called a prophetess (Isaiah 8:3).  Yet we have no record of how she prophesied.  Thus, we cannot say that she did so in violation of the view we are presenting.  In addition, we have no record of her teaching or exercising authority over men.

Philips’s daughters are called prophetesses.  But we have no record of how or what they prophesied.  Thus, we cannot assume that they prophesied in the gathering of the church contrary to 1 Cor. 14.  And in no way can we say that they were teachers or exercised authority in the assembly of the church.

Anna was called a prophetess in Luke 2:36. She had the glorious honor, like Simeon, of seeing Jesus after He was born and brought to the temple.  She had worshiped at the temple with fasting and prayer day and night since her husband died.  And upon seeing Jesus she shared, as we all should, the good news.  How she prophesied or shared the news of Jesus is not specifically stated.  Historical context tells us that women were not allowed to teach in the temple.  But they were allowed to share God’s truth in personal conversation.  This aligns with the view presented.

In addition, there are no women recorded giving a sermon or teaching to a church gathering in the New Testament.  There are no woman apostles or elders whose job it was and is to teach.  There are no women designated by the apostles or elders to teach under their authority to men. Paul is consistent on this matter. Women may prophesy within the limitations set in 1 Corinthians 14, but they should not teach or exercise authority over men in the gathering of the church.  At Pentecost, Peter rises up with the other apostles (not women) and teaches the assembly (Acts 2:14).

Objection: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is saying women are not allowed to exercise abusive authority, violence, or murder.

Response: During the New Testament period the Greek verb translated “exercise authority” (according to all the manuscripts we have from that time-period) was never used to denote abusive authority, violence, or murder (Henry Scott Baldwin, “An Important Word: Authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Second Edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 39-52). There are no instances of this Greek word being used to designate murder until tenth century AD, approximately 900 years after this text was written (Ibid.)   There is evidence later in history that the noun authentes (not the verb used in this passage) could mean either “master, one who has authority,” or “murderer” (Ibid.) But this noun functions like the word ear.  Ear, depending on context can either mean the ear of a human or an ear of corn. Context makes the meaning clear.  The context of this passage clearly eliminates murder (a much later in history usage) as a possibility.

In addition, the fact that “exercise authority” is a verb and not a noun further eliminates this usage. If a news anchor says, “In the presidential race there has been a lot of racism” no one is confused by the two senses of the word race, and no one will conclude that the verb “race” has anything to do with the noun, racism (Ibid.).  By the same token, it is a basic linguistic mistake to conclude that the meanings of the noun authentes (which could mean, “master, one who has authority,” or murder in later centuries) force the verb authenteo to mean instigate violence (Ibid).  The use of the verb in context, according to its time-period, and overall definition must be the determining factors.

George Knight writes in conjunction with this:

αὐθεντεῖν** (a biblical hapax; see Knight, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ” and the response by Wilshire, “TLG Computer”), once thought to be unique to Christian literature (e.g., Thayer, Lexicon), occurs in the papyrus BGU 1208: 38      (27 BC) and in Philodemus, Rhetoric 2 (first century BC; see BAGD for further documentation and later   occurrences) and is referred to as Hellenistic (Ἑλληνιϰῶς) over against Attic αὐτοδιϰεῖν by the second- century AD Attic lexicographer Moeris (ed. J. Pierson [1759], 58; [43 in 1831 edition]; cf. also the account of the word and its meaning and that of related words, especially αὐθέντης, in MM; Deissmann, Light, 88f.; Robertson, IV, 570; MHT II, 278). Contrary to the suggestion of KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s  alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the word shows no inherent negative sense of grasping or  usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority” (BAGD; LSJM: “to have full power or authority over”; cf. Preisigke, Wörterbuch I, 235f., giving  three nuances for four different papyri, all in the sphere of the above definition; cf. finally Lampe, Lexicon, whose four main meanings are in the same orbit; so NASB, RSV, TEV, NIV: “to have authority”) (Knight,  George W.. The Pastoral Epistles (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) (p. 268). Wm. B.  Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition).

Objection: In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Paul is speaking in the present tense which implies a temporary restriction on the Ephesian women.

Response: But the present tense is used in 1 Timothy 2:1, Romans 12:1, 1 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:1; Titus 3:8 and a multitude of other passages expressing vital commands to be followed by the people of God throughout history.  This objection is, in fact, evidence for the timeless nature of the prohibitions in this passage.

Objection: The Greek word for “exercise authority” (in 1 Timothy 2:12) is only used once in the New Testament so we really can’t be sure of its meaning. Thus, we ignore this prohibition.

Response: Paul used 65 other words in 1 Timothy alone that are nowhere else in the New Testament.  1,934 words occur only once in the New Testament. Are we to erase all the truths those expound?  No.  Context, related passages, early analysis, and usage of the word outside of the Bible give us a clear pathway to determining the meaning of these words.  The context, related passages, earlier analysis, and usage outside of the Bible all support the complementarian view of this text.

Objection: The reasoning for this command is sexist (1 Tim. 2:13-15). It specifically downplays the intelligence of women and portrays them as gullible saps.

Response: If that were the case the prohibition would restrict older women from teaching and exercising authority over younger women and children.  But it does not.  It simply states that women are not allowed to teach or exercise authority over men due to the perfect creative order and because of Eve being deceived.

Objection: This view leaves women with an irredeemable stigma triggered by the Fall, and makes women the lesser of the sexes. If they can’t teach or exercise authority over a man, they’re lesser.

Response: Such statements miss the truth presented right after the prohibition (1 Timothy 1:11-12) and reason for the prohibition (1 Tim. 1:13-14).  In 1 Timothy 2:15, it says, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”  What does that mean?  That means women are saved from the negative stigma of sinning first and being a helper through childbearing.  That God gave women something that men can’t do.  They give birth and are a part of a child’s rearing like a man can never be (granted they continue in godliness).  And without this man cannot continue to exist (1 Cor. 11:11-12) and would be missing out on an essential component of joy.  Women are not the lesser.  In fact, man cannot accomplish their God given roles without women.  When they function within their God given role they are saved from the stigma of the fall and blessed by God.

Objection: In the previous verses (1 Tim. 2:8-10) it says, “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” That seems to be talking about unacceptable cultural norms.  It is not a sin to braid one’s hair or have gold or pearls or costly attire.   Thus, the following verses must be speaking of a cultural norm that is not applicable today.

Response: The point of this passage is how a woman should adorn herself.  A woman’s focus should not be on external beauty, but on respectability – being modest, having self-control and practicing good works.  This is in perfect alignment with what Peter writes to all the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1) in 1 Peter 3:1-7 which says, “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.  Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.  For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”

This is also supported by the judgement thrusted upon ostentatious ruling women in Isaiah 3.

What Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not preceded by a cultural mandate for a specific time period, but a timeless truth for all in all churches.

Also, the reasons for not allowing women to teach or exercise authority over men is based in the creative order and the Fall in the following verses (2 Tim. 2:13-15).  Thus, this is not a cultural prohibition.

Objection: What about head coverings? That is a cultural thing.  Since that is cultural shouldn’t we consider this a cultural mandate. 

Response: Head coverings are dealt with in 1 Corinthians 11.  And the reason head coverings are mandated for women in Corinth is because God created roles for each one of the sexes.  Head coverings were how women clearly displayed their sex and submission to male leadership, and in turn Jesus’s leadership, while praying or prophesying.  This works in tandem with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.  It is telling the Corinthian women to dress in a manner that clearly speaks of their God given gender and role.  So, this passage is not a threat to what Paul communicates in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.  It supports the timeless principals and applications presented in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Objection: There are not that many verses that prohibit woman from teaching. Thus, it is not crucial to obey. 

Response: There are only two verses that say a believer should not marry an unbeliever in the New Testament.  Does the number of verses determine validity of the truth they are clearly presenting?  No.  They must be taken seriously and followed.  All Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16).

Objection: Why include youth group? The youth are not adults?

Response:  At the moment the general rule of America is that adulthood starts at 18 years of age.  However, this was not the case when this text was written.  One was considered an adult in the Jewish culture at 13.  The general ability to have kids initiates at this age and marriage of early teens when the text was written was acceptable and supported.. Some today, typically address high school students as young men and women as in Titus 2.  Depending on the severity of the case a youth can be tried as an adult.  Yes, the are highschoolers who are still children.  But there are Highschoolers that are young adults.  For these reasons we include the Youth Group in the ministries that this passage applies to.

In addition, our culture is bent on removing responsibility. It gives teenagers (a relatively new term) a pass for immaturity and enables unhealthy prolonged dependance.  Colleges are breeding houses for reckless behavior that is excused by terms like “experimenting,” and “finding oneself.”  Our culture encourages people to stay children, act childish, and to expect to be treated like a child for as long as possible.  This is not training in righteousness.  That is training in lazy immaturity that provokes sons and daughters to anger.  When we hold back the training and responsibility that our son or daughter needs and is capable of handling it is a catalyst for frustration and resentment (cf. Eph. 6:4).

Objection: Why include Connect Groups?

Response: If the majority of early churches resembled anything, it is the Connect Group ministry.  When the church first started, they did not typically gather in a building designated specifically for services.  They gathered in or near the temple, in open areas, and mostly homes.  These varied in size and growth rates.  Connect groups are an extension of FBC today and they are to function under the general guidelines of Scripture.  One of those guidelines is for women not to teach or exercise authority over men.  With a submissive helping heart that is precious in the sight of God we encourage women to contribute much needed conversation, insight, testimony, prayer, song and service alongside the other members.  And we encourage men to step up and lead.

Objection: 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 was not a part of the original text. It was added later, thus it has no bearing on for how the church functions today.

Response:   Anthony C. Thiselton provides a helpful summary of the five primary reasons utilized to promote this view:

(1) The verses allegedly differ from the main theme or themes of 12: 1– 14, 40; (2) they supposedly interrupt the  flow of instructions about the prophets, as the Western copyists perceive (and a few MSS place them after 14: 40, e.g., D, F, G); (3) the verses contradict 11: 5; (4) to appeal to “the law” to endorse or to validate church discipline is “non-Pauline”; (5) “the expression ‘the church of the saints’ [ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, translated above as the churches of God’s holy people] is foreign to Paul.” (Thiselton, Anthony C.. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Greek Testament Commentary) (p. 1840). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..Kindle Edition.)

We will address each of these reasons.  The first proposal does not merit an elimination of the text from scripture because the overall theme of 1 Corinthians 12:1-14, 40 is how men and women are to function within their God-given roles.  1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 aligns with this theme.  It informs men and women how to function withing their God-given roles within the gathering of the body of Christ.  It allows for prophecy, but in a certain manner and place.

We reject the second proposal due to the fact that this passage is still included in all the manuscripts that shift the text (which is not an uncommon compounding scribal error).

The concept that it 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 should be rejected because it does not align with I Corinthians 11:5 is not justified as explained in Section B Part c. The passages complement each other.  They do not contradict.  One explains how a woman is to prophesy in submission.  The other explains how women are not to prophesy in a church gathering.

We reject the proposal that the endorsement of the law was not Pauline and thus 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40 should be rejected.  Paul utilized the law in a positive manner in various other epistles to promote the truth that used appropriately, points to one’s need for Christ.  An example of this is in Romans 7:7-13.

We reject the proposal that “the expression ‘the church of the saints’ [ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, translated above as the churches of God’s holy people] as reason to ignore or remove this text.  Myriads of expressions were used once by Paul and the authors of the Scripture.

What do you mean when you say that Eve was not a “co-leader” with Adam? How can you say that when she is obviously given leadership over the animals of the Garden and subsequent children?

Response: The expression is not meant to imply that Eve never exercised leadership.  Cleary, she did.  However, in relationship to Adam she was made the helper.

What is Isaiah 3 about? Where and how does it communicate God putting/allowing women to rule as a form of judgement?

Response: Warren Weirsbe gives a great overall explanation of this: 

“The day of the Lord (2:6—3:26). This is that period of time when God will send judgment to the nations and purify Israel in preparation for the coming of His King to reign in Jerusalem. The day of the Lord is described by John (Rev. 6—19), by the prophets (Isa. 13:6ff.; Ezek. 30; Joel 1:15; 2:1ff.; Zeph. 1:7ff.; Zech. 14:1ff.), and by the Lord Jesus (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). It will be a time of terrible suffering, the environment will be devastated, and millions of people will die. (Note the repetition of the phrase “in that day”: Isa. 2:17, 20; 3:7, 18; 4:1–2.)

To the prophets, “the day of the Lord” was foreshadowed by events in their own day. In the book of Isaiah, Assyria’s conquest of the northern kingdom and invasion of Judah, and the Babylonian captivity of Judah both picture the coming “day of the Lord.”

Why will God judge His people? Because of their idolatry, covetousness, pride, and exploiting of the poor (2:6–22). Instead of holding to the truth of God’s Word, they were adopting “superstitions from the East” (v. 6 NIV), not unlike many “religious seekers” today. The growth of Eastern religions in the modern Western world is a phenomenon that is both frightening and challenging. Even nonreligious people are practicing Eastern forms of meditation and relaxation, following techniques that are being taught in university classes and business seminars.

The prosperity of the nation made leaders proud and covetous. Instead of trusting the Lord, they trusted their wealth and war equipment, not realizing that neither would deliver them in the coming day of judgment. The leaders were exploiting the poor, crushing them like grain in a mill (3:13–15). God will not allow His people to be proud and self-confident, but will humble them and cut them down like trees in the forest. “The LORD alone shall be exalted in that day” (2:11, 17) when men flee from His wrath and discover the worthlessness of their idols and the consequences of their sins (vv. 19–22).

How will God judge His people? By taking away from them everything they were trusting, including food and water, leaders and soldiers, and judges and prophets (3:1–15). The entire support system of the nation would disintegrate, and there would be no remedy. Nobody would want to hold office except women and children (Wiersbe, Warren W.. Be Comforted (Isaiah) (The BE Series Commentary) (pp. 31-32). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition).

As it was to the shame of Barak, to the shame of the men of Israel who had led the nation into sin Israel was going to be ruled by children and women.

Aren’t their other ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 14:33b-40?

Response: Some include speaking in tongues in this restriction. They argue that the passage concentrates on these two miraculous speaking gifts, then makes this broad prohibition on speaking in the gathering of believers.  This view aligns with the text and supports the view being presented concerning teaching and exercising authority. However, we do not hold to this view because Acts 1-2 seems to indicate that men and women spoke in tongues at Pentecost.  The proponents of this view, however, do argue that the event was not a regular and repeated event like a church service.  They also argue that the precise details of who was speaking in tongues and how it was organized is difficult to determine.

Some might argue that this command only prohibits the evaluation of prophecy, not prophecy itself.  This view still supports the view presented concerning teaching and exercising authority.  It limits women from the authoritative practice of evaluating prophecy while still allowing them to prophesy in a submissive manner in the gathering of believers.  But in verse 37, the call to heed the commands of verses 33b-35, is directed to all prophets, not just to those who weigh the prophecy.  Also, such a precise distinction is difficult to justify given the broad nature of the prohibition.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this prohibition is at least, concerned with the giving of prophecy and its interpretation.

This view hinders the ministry of women in the church.

Response: The Bible limits what type of man can serve as an elder.  It also limits what type of man or woman can serve as deacon.  However, the ministry of those who do not qualify for these roles is not hindered.  They are called to and can serve in myriads of ways outside of those roles for which they do not qualify.  The same is true concerning women in general.  Although the Scripture does not allow them to teach or exercise authority over men within the church gathering there are myriads of ways they are called to and can serve the body of Christ.

What about Acts 22:4? It supports men and women teaching and preaching Christ.

Response: Acts 22:4 says, “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women.”  This passage is about how Paul persecuted men and women who were believers.  Both men and women shared their faith in Jesus and stuck with Jesus to the point of death.  This is to be commended.  But this does not say that women taught and preached in the gathering of believers.  It only tells us that both men and women were persecuted to the point of death by Paul.

Does this mean when a teacher asks a question or for people to share their experience in Sunday School a woman cannot answer the question or give testimony?

Response: No.

Does this mean a woman cannot pray, read scripture, or sing with the praise band, or sing a solo in church?

Response: No.

But isn’t answering a question, giving testimony, praying, reading scripture or singing a solo teaching?

Response: There is a sense in which everything could be called teaching.  One could say a person is teaching others how great God is by raising their hands during a song.  One could say that habits, literally running from a situation that is sinful, or refraining from speaking at certain times is instructive.  In other words, one could define everything as some form of teaching and thus reduce the concept of teaching to obscurity and meaninglessness.  This same could be done with exercising authority.  So no, when the teacher asks for an answer, testimony, someone to pray, read scripture or sing a solo they are not exchanging roles.  The opposite is true.  They are asking for people to submit through non-authoritative participation.

What about Mary? In Luke 10 she sat at the feet of Jesus, contrary to culture and learned from Jesus.  And if she did that she must have taught and/or exercised authority over others.

Response: We celebrate Mary’s eagerness to learn at the feet of Jesus.  And this is in perfect alliance with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which tells all women to learn in quietness and submission.  And we hope that Mary shared what she learned from Jesus.  However, the text does not say that she taught or exercised authority in the gathering of believers as 1 Timothy 2:11-12 clearly prohibits.  To say so is to add to the text.  It is an argument from silence.

There is “Big-T” and “Little-T” teaching. “Big-T” is preaching from the pulpit.  It carries a special authority.  “Little-T” is teaching is in mixed men and women Sunday School, Bible-studies, or small groups.  “Big T” is not okay for women, but “Little-T” is okay.

Response:  The ramifications of teaching heresy are just as serious in Sunday School as from the pulpit.   The effect of biblical teaching, no matter the venue, can be used by the Holy Spirit to change lives.  The distinction this objection raises is nowhere in the Bible.  This distinction is simply another form of eisegesis (See Objection 4,5,6 and 7 for further analysis).

This is a secondary issue. Why make it such a big deal? 

Response:  This will not determine ones’ salvation.  However, this is an obedience issue.  If God spoke it and put it in His Word to be forever preserved and followed, it is of vital importance that we seek to follow it wholeheartedly.