Guys, Gals, and the Glory of Christ
Why women are prohibited from authority over men in the Church
Recently I responded to a social-media post concerning the ordination of women as pastors. The post-er conveyed that at one time he’d been “egalitarian”—holding that women can take on the same church roles as men—but had converted to “complementarianism,” the idea that men and women have equal but different roles.
Is this an important issue? Or, is it really just that complementarians are old-fashioned, patriarchal Pharisee-types?
Well, they’re old-fashioned, alright, but not necessarily the latter. As one commenter said,
I know people don’t want to touch this. However, it is incumbent upon every Christian to do as the Bible instructs. Play loose with one thing; it is easy to play loose with other things.
Amen.
In this article I’ve turned people’s comments on that post into generic questions or statements—not always agreeing with each other—which I then attempt to answer one by one. The debate centered around a particular verse that is, to postmoderns, controversial:
I [the Apostle Paul] do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. [1 Timothy 2:12]
“A female pastor in the Assemblies of God argued that Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 aren’t universal rules for all time, but intended for something specific to the church in Ephesus.”1
Sadly, this is eisegesis on her part. (a) Basing an interpretation of any Bible passage on an unverifiable historical reconstruction means that the interpretation hangs on that reconstruction—rather than on what God has actually said. In this way God’s own words are circumvented: the passage is treated as nonauthoritative and thus irrelevant and dismissible.
(b) First Corinthians 14:33b-34 makes the subject universal.2
(c) Paul actually states his rationale in 1 Timothy 2: “For [or “Because”] Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (vv. 13-14)
Obviously this is not specific to Ephesus; Paul’s explicitly stated rationale for the command(s) he’d just given is twofold:
The creation order, and—
The deception of Eve (more on that in a moment)—
—factors that apply to all churches at all times in every culture.
“According to Genesis 2:18, God made ‘a helper comparable to’ Adam—not be subservient to him. God has created men and women each with strengths that the other does not have.”
True. But the fact that men and women are different3 in some respects logically implies complementarity. The traditional model of gender roles fits into this: neither role is “better” than the other—just as God the Father isn’t “better” than the Son or the Holy Spirit, even though the Father carries more authority.
“I recommend reading scholars who have spent lifetimes on the various difficult passages. I also recommend listening to women who have been called to preach.”
Respectfully, this person is taking back with the left hand what they gave with the right. Challenging others to dive into in-depth commentaries is entirely appropriate—but their follow-up statement presupposes the egalitarian view, when that’s the very thing that needs proving. It’s also circular; basically just “Listen to women who’ve been called to preach, and you’ll realize that women have been called to preach.”
But that assumes what it’s supposed to prove. Therefore it’s not persuasive.
“The traditional (complementarian) interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 falls flat because it can’t make sense of verse 15.”
Verse 15 is notoriously difficult to understand:
But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I don’t believe this verse actually makes any difference as to how we should understand the prior discussion—but since it does cap off that discussion, let’s consider it anyway. Despite its difficulty, “there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14.”4 In other words, verses 12-14 condition our understanding of verse 15—not the reverse. There’s nothing about v. 15 that makes it the determinor of what vv. 12-14 mean.
There are only several plausible interpretations of verse 15 available, hingeing on the words “saved” and “through” (in the phrase “through childbearing”): is this spiritual salvation—i.e., being given eternal life—or a kind of practical, circumstantial deliverance? I’m pretty much sold on the latter, but here are the realistic possibilities. . . .
(a) Verses 12-14 were likely hard to stomach by the women at Timothy’s church, so Paul softens the blow by reminding them that despite Eve’s failure, women will still be saved from the Fall through the birth of Christ.
However, he doesn’t actually mention Christ, and in fact “the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product.”5 Plus, such an encouragement would apply equally to men, and so offers nothing special to women.
(b) “Through,” in the phrase “through childbearing,” “does not necessarily denote means or instrument[ality] here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance . . . [as in] ‘with, [or] though accompanied by’[.]”6 In this vein Douglas Moo has argued: “It is not through [or “in the context of”] active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood[.]”7
Similar (though not exactly the same) is a suggestion by one commenter beneath the online post:
[T]he simplest solution is that this “saved” is a type of vindication. Although a woman is to blame for giving in to deception, women remain essential to the survival of the human race through childbirth and procreation.
This possibility is worth considering, especially since it also dovetails with the following view.
(c) Paul “may be saying that women will be saved from doing evil things by bearing children.”8 Here “saved” would be understood as a temporal, moral deliverance, rather than being “saved” into eternal life. This suggestion is intriguing because it has a strong affinity with Paul’s instructions about widows vs. young women in the same letter (5:9-16; cf. 4:1-3; Titus 2:4-5; Proverbs 31:27-29).
I really like this particular option. And while, again, it doesn’t seem to help single or childless women, nonetheless it’s possible that there’s an implication precisely for them: even if you have no children of your own, invest in the spiritual “mothering” (or nurturing) of others, whether young or old.
“The similarity between complementarianism—keeping women in a subordinate position—and support of the African slave trade is striking. Considering that history, it is certainly worth the effort to do better contextual research to ensure we get it right.”
Yeah, somebody actually made that “argument.” It’s ridiculous. God-ordained differences in gender roles simply do not parallel the tragic, ages-long institution of slavery. For one thing, nobody’s going out to round up women against their will and force them to join a complementarian church. They’re free to come and go, no less than men.
What’s more, the Bible gives us a rationale behind those gender roles, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. I’ll come back to that in a moment, but for now let me point out the irony in the above challenger saying we must “do better contextual research” when in fact it’s egalitarianism that sacrifices Biblical context on the altar of unverifiable historical reconstructions and an imaginary link to slavery. The words of Scripture on their own simply don’t produce egalitarianism. The latter is nothing more than the product of modern feminism, imposed on Scripture.
Even worse, though the above-quoted egalitarian imagines that the traditional view somehow parallels slavery, the reality is that egalitarianism is logically connected to sexual perversion and transgenderism.
“Outlandish,” you say? “Outrageous”?
No: on target.
The logic is this:
If we argue that men and women may fill any given role in the Church (or in society at large), that assumes that God hasn’t, in fact, ordained the two genders to play different roles.
If we assume that God hasn’t ordained the two genders to play different roles, then it also shouldn’t matter how we define marriage; instead of “one man, one woman,” we can make it “one whatever, two whatevers, three whatevers,” and so on. A woman can play “husband,” and a man play “wife.” After all, there aren’t any exclusive gender roles, right?
But if we can redefine gender roles and marriage—then we can logically redefine gender itself. If a man believes he can “transition” into a woman—how can we argue against that? Even if biology gets in the way—that whole XX/XY chromosome nuisance—how can we argue against the spiritual rightness of a man or woman “feeling like” and identifying with the “opposite” gender?
Finally: why be binary at all? Why not adopt a variegated spectrum?
In other words, logically, if we can redefine gender roles in the functioning of the Church, then why can’t we redefine roles in marriage, redefine marriage itself, and then gender itself?
God’s creational ordinance grounds all of these:
Male and female: just two genders;
Built-in differences because they were intended to play different roles.
“Jesus was radical! Learning the cultural context helps us grasp what Jesus was doing at the time and for today. Jesus was pointing the way forward, the way things are to be.”
Ah yes, if the actual wording of Scripture isn’t enough, we can always co-opt Jesus, right?
Well, it’s true that Jesus was “radical” by some of the standards of his day—but not by all the standards of his day. For instance, he shared with the Pharisees the conviction that the entire Old Testament is divinely inspired, from start to finish. He also shared with the religious elite that God specifically ordained men for leadership in the faith-community.
This is demonstrated by the fact that although Jesus had female followers, he designated only men to be Apostles. More broadly, while the Lord certainly righted what had been a cultural belittling of women, it doesn't follow that he held men and women to be interchangeable when it comes to ministry roles.
“Isn’t 1 Timothy 2:14—‘The woman was deceived’—saying that women are more prone to deception than men?”
No. There’s no evidence, either Biblical or scientific, that the average woman has a lower IQ than the average man. And all of God’s people are called to acquire wisdom and discernment. Besides, as one commenter astutely pointed out, “if women are more [naturally] prone to deception than men, then logically they should not be entrusted with the teaching of other women or children, either.”
Well said!
It seems to me that Scripture indicates two other, far more plausible angles on the deception and fall of Eve.
Satan made a point of going after the person lower on the human totem pole. This was logical: he was appealing to (or inspiring) Eve’s desire to be elevated—mirroring Satan’s own desire. We don’t know Adam and Eve’s psychology, but an appeal of this nature could have been expected to be more effective on the woman than on the man.
Eve’s “real” fall may have occurred prior to “the” fall: she ignored the headship of Adam while talking with the Serpent. Genesis 3:6 tells us that Eve “gave some [of the fruit] to her husband with her, and he ate it, too.”
Adam likewise could be viewed as having already fallen, because apparently he was nearby yet failed to intervene. Therefore Eve was seduced not because she lacked critical-thinking faculties that Adam could have brought to bear—but simply because she stepped out of her God-ordained role.
The principle here is that whenever anyone, man or woman, steps outside of God’s will, they render themselves more vulnerable to deception. In other words, discernment doesn’t hinge on one’s innate faculties, but on the Lord’s protection within the bounds of His will.
I reaffirm here that women are no less intelligent than men. But the pattern of reality seems to be that the average female “pastor” is more prone to false doctrine than the average male pastor. Churches that embrace female pastors, such as the Episcopal Church or certain branches of the Presbyterian Church, also tend to adopt more liberal theological stances over time (e.g., revising or dropping traditional views on the authority of Scripture, sexual ethics, or the exclusivity of Christ for salvation).
Female commentator Michelle Lesley agrees with me:
[W]omen teaching men and women teaching false doctrine are highly correlated. I have researched scores of women teachers. Every single one of them who unrepentantly teaches men also teaches false doctrine in some other aspect of her theology (usually Word of Faith or New Apostolic Reformation). In other words, if a woman teaches men, you can just about take it to the bank that she also teaches false doctrine.9
I’m convinced this is precisely because such women have pridefully chosen to color outside the divine lines—and thus forfeit God’s protection against false doctrine. It has nothing to do with their intellect, because doctrinal purity doesn’t depend on one’s IQ, but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“God is very logical! He doesn’t expect men to ‘lead’ just because of some male supremacy for no good reason.”
Agreed! It’s hardly for “no reason”:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. . . . Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . .
This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. [Ephesians 5:22-23, 25, 32]
Very logical, yes, and quite sublime.
Now, that’s referring explicitly to husbands and wives—so how can it apply to an authoritative position in church? For one simple reason: the husband is considered the head of the household, and the Church is the “household,” or “family,” of God. Paul makes this very connection:
So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must . . . manage his own family well, having children who respect and obey him. For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? [1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5]
Reading the Bible over and over again will make it clear to anyone that almost everything God has commanded is intended to glorify His Son and restore us to, or deepen us in, a relationship with the Living God via Christ.
This includes the respective roles of men and women: those roles constitute just one part of God’s overall mission to draw people to Himself through Jesus, who “called us by his glory and goodness.” (2 Peter 1:3)
Sadly, though, most people “are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)
Partly (not only!) by upholding Biblical manhood and womanhood, the Church can be that much more successful in pointing the world to Jesus.
†
Timothy was sort of Paul’s proxy there for a time.
“[T]he precise link between verse 33a and verse 33b, and therefore between verses 33b and verse 34, is disputed. Do we read, ‘For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregation of the saints’; or ‘As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches’? The latter is stylistically inelegant, for in Greek the words rendered ‘congregations’ and ‘churches’ by the NIV are the same word: i.e., ‘As in all the churches of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.’ But what some see as stylistic inelegance, others see as powerful emphasis achieved by repetition. Moreover, if verse 33b is linked with what precedes, it is uncertain just what the line of thought is. In the sentence, ‘For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints,’ what is being compared? God and the congregations of the saints? God’s peaceful order with what is in all the congregations of the saints? The sentence can be salvaged only by understanding an additional phrase, such as: ‘and this principle must be operative in your church, as in all the congregations of the saints.’
“On the whole, it seems best to take verse 33b with what follows. But even if someone prefers the other option, little is changed in the interpretation of verses 34–36, since the phrase ‘in the churches’ (in the plural) is found in verse 34.” (D. A. Carson, “On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36,” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (eds.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991, 2006, 2021], 179-80 [italics his])
See Focus on the Family, “Key Differences Between Male and Female” (Colorado Springs, CO: © 2015 [accessed 25 Nov. 2024]); and Glenn T. Stanton, “Is There a Universal Male and Female Nature?” (Focus on the Family, 24 Sept. 2017 [accessed 25 Nov. 2024]).
Editors, New English Translation (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, LLC, © 1996, 2019), 1Tim. 2:15 n24 (accessed 25 Nov. 2024).
Ibid. (italics mine).
Ibid.
Editors, New English Translation, op. cit.
John D. Barry, ed., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1Tim. 2:15 note (italics mine; accessed 25 Nov. 2024).
Emphasis hers.