Can Women Be Pastors? A Look at 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and Relevant Texts

Introduction

Throughout my life, I had heard from the pulpit and read in books that despite what passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 11, or even Colossians 3:18-19 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 said, there were no role differences between men and women in ministry or marriage. However, once I began studying these things, it became clear that the Bible simply meant what it said regarding this issue in the same way it means what it says with other subjects that offend our modern culture. I believe that Scripture shows women playing a crucial role in the life of the church, ministry and home, but that the role and function of elder/overseer (pastor) is reserved for men, as has been the understanding by the church for the vast majority of history. This is a further reflection of the role husbands have as head/leaders of their homes. While debates over this topic and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rage, it is not as if these few verses are the only biblical witness to the issue at hand. In other words, the understanding of the unique roles of men and women cannot be reduced down to this one passage. God’s creation of men and women as equal in value, but distinct in roles can be seen in Genesis 2 even before the fall, and I think what Scripture teaches there is foundational to how we understand our roles as men and women. Passages like 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19,1 Peter 3:1-7 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are all instructions on the design and role differences of men and women within corporate worship and marriage that are grounded in Old Testament teaching.

To say that there is a contentious debate in recent decades as to the role of women in ministry (and also the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives) would be a massive understatement. I would submit that the offense and contention around this topic arises from the 20th century feminist movements that have produced a revulsion around the topic of biblical submission and God’s created and established order for mankind. In fact, it was second wave feminism that prompted conservative evangelicals in the 1980’s to draft The Danvers Statement, which I believe faithfully represents the biblical position in regard to this topic. A term for the position that Danvers holds to is generally referred to as “Complementarianism” which posits that men and women are equal in essence (both made in the image of God) but distinct in roles. This stands over and against “Egalitarianism” which puts forth a view that since male and female are of equal worth, they should also be equal in social roles. The thought that a husband is the “head” of his wife in the sense that he carries a leadership role that involves a greater degree of authority than the wife, or that the office of elder (pastor) is limited to only qualified men is antithetical to egalitarianism. I believe the feminism that now permeates much of our society projects a certain philosophy onto Scripture. I see many egalitarian Christians that are quick to point out how unbelievers reject God’s design for marriage as being one man and one woman, but it seems they themselves do something similar when it comes to role differences between the sexes. God has biologically created men and women to be different and distinct from each other. A man can never fulfill the unique role of birthing a child by God’s design. Is this inequality? Is this unfair? Does this unique characteristic make man and woman unequal? If God purposed that the role of a man in marriage is to be the head/leader, and his wife the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7), is this inequality? Many today would answer in the affirmative given our highly egalitarian culture (at the expense of, in my opinion, sound exegesis of Scripture). As mentioned, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not stand in a vacuum and the historical view of biblical gender roles (not least within the church) do not depend on this passage alone. However, it is indeed a very important text, the teaching of which cannot be disregarded. I do not wish to reject the implications of Scripture in regard to women in ministry. Women can and should teach, evangelize, disciple, and serve the church in a variety of ways as Acts 18:24-26,Romans 16 and Titus 2:3-4 alone show us. It is evident from 2Timothy 1:5 and 3:14-15 that Timothy was spiritually shaped by the most influential women in his life; his mother and grandmother (his Greek father evidently being an unbeliever-Acts 16:1-3).

I also do not wish to reject explicit instructions (not mere inferences) for the qualifications of elders within the local church or the roles within marriage. These things are not at odds with one another as egalitarians claim them to be. The foundational flaw I see in the egalitarian view is the belief that role differences based on sex are inherently unfair and diminishes personal worth. This leads to an interpretive lens through which many passages of Scripture that appear to be clear on the issue become "preposterous" if taken at face value. The presupposition brought to Scripture is that “equality in essence means equality in roles.” This starting point is then shoved into the Bible in a myriad of places so that no matter what Scripture says on the issue, it’s not Scripture that is teaching and training someone, it’s the prior philosophical conviction. William Mounce sums it up concisely by stating, “the equation of worth and role is a nonbiblical, secular view of reality. Nowhere in Scripture are role and ultimate worth ever equated. In fact, we consistently find the opposite” (Mounce, 148). For example, the only people who qualified to serve in the priesthood in Israel were the Levites. Should we infer that the Israelites who were prohibited from ever serving as priests simply because of the tribe they belonged to were somehow inferior in worth or dignity? Of course not. Is Christ, the “Suffering Servant" worth less than those He came to serve? Consider that Jesus condescended from transcendent glory to take on flesh, humbling Himself and becoming obedient unto death (Phil. 2:6-8) and who prayed “yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42). Mounce further adds, “If role and worth are equated, then one must necessarily conclude that God the Son is of less worth than God the Father because he performs a different, subservient role” (Mounce, 148). Equality in value does not have to mean equality in roles. As Romans 12:4-5 says, “For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” 

These examples alone do not prove the historical/complementarian position, but it shows a flaw in the philosophical presupposition egalitarians often bring to the table. This flawed line of reasoning requires me to do three things:

(1) Affirm a false dichotomy not found in Scripture; i.e. “Either equality in value has to mean equality in roles, or else men and women are not of equal worth.” This leads to…

(2) Denying/rejecting the simple and clear understanding of Scripture with regard to this issue while also…

(3) Rejecting the church’s historical understanding of this issue (across nearly every denominational tradition).

Nothing I’ve seen presented by egalitarians seems remotely convincing enough to force me to take any of the points stated above. In this essay, I will put forth conclusions to my study on the topic broadly by expositing 1 Timothy 2:11-15 while also looking at other relevant texts. I will address several common objections as well as spend some time speaking to what roles women ought to play in the church and in marriage. I will also link to my exposition on Ephesians 5:21-33 in the “Recommended Resources” section at the end of the essay.

For more introduction to this topic and approaching Scripture with the proper framework, I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/live/3HQSlQLYQsE?si=V1DTp4dMDgVnfM08

Context

For our study in 1 Timothy 2, the main question we should ask is if these instructions by Paul are only relevant for the church in Ephesus, or if they are transcultural (for all churches at all times). In either case, what exegetical reason do we have for believing so? Or in other words, we need to examine the reason Paul gives for the instruction. Is it due to a cultural concern or grounded in a prior biblical/theological principle? The primary reason for the letter was to address the problem of false teachers (1:3-7, 4:1-3). In the midst of this is the issue of proper order and structure of the church, particularly in regard to the gathered assembly and public worship. Paul says as much in 1 Timothy 3:15, “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul specifically instructs the men “in every place” or “everywhere” to pray without wrath and dissension, or as the NIV translates it, “anger or disputing.” This not only addresses a specific issue with men, but clarifies the universal nature of the command given (everywhere/in all places). Thomas Lea notes that “Paul’s description of the manner in which the men should pray has universal application although local circumstances had stimulated the earnestness of his appeal” (Lea, 95). This one verse directed at men carries a lot of theological weight and should not go unstudied. Scripture is replete with warnings against unholy prayer. Consider Proverbs 28:9 which states, “If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable” (NIV). If, as v.12 suggests, men are leading the worship, anger and disputes must not be permitted. As Robert Yarbrough comments, “Angry men passionate about being right are a primary threat to acceptable worship, as well as to the wider relational dynamics that should contribute to harmony in Christian homes and congregations” (Yarbrough, 164). Likewise, Paul goes on to address specifically women in 2:9-15. For verses 9-10, women are exhorted to be less concerned with outward appearance and the vanity that comes with it, and instead focus on good works. Good works, in the immediate context, seems to be the concern for attentive learning in a corporate worship setting, submitting to proper authority, and general continuance in faith, love and sanctity (cf. 5:10). “He is simply affirming that women are as responsible for the integrity of God’s people at worship as men are. If men may imperil that integrity by misplaced zeal, women may do so by undue attention to how they look” (Yarbrough, 165). Moving with Paul’s flow of thought,let’s now take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 verse by verse to see what is being communicated here:

1 Timothy 2:11-15

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NASB95): “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

Exposition

2:11-“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

The first thing we should note is that women are to “receive instruction”, or as most translations render it, “learn” (KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NLT). The ESV renders this verse: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” I don’t want to miss this point. Paul gives an imperative to Timothy. Robert Yarborough sums up the emphasis here when he states, “The sense of Paul’s command is “See to it, Timothy, that the woman who seeks to learn does so”” (Yarborough, 171). Just as Mary sat at her Master’s feet and chose “what is better” (Luke 10:42, NIV)so ought men and women alike seek to learn and grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God. This is certainly what it means to love God with all our “mind” (Matt. 22:37). In fact, Mary may be a great picture of what Paul wants in the church. That is, quietly and submissively learning from the teacher as Mary would have been doing. This was contrary to the culture of Paul’s day (even in 1st century Judaism). Lea states that Paul’s command for the women to learn “reflects Christian practice which differed from the customs of Judaism. Judaism would enforce physical silence on women without concern for their growth in knowledge” (Lea, 98). John Stott further highlights the contrast of the New Testament to Judaism by pointing tothe “chauvinistic Rabbinical opinion expressed in the Jerusalem Talmud that it would be better for the words of the Torah to be burned, than that they should be entrusted to a woman” (Stott, 85). This verse doesn’t just state that a woman should be learning, but also the manner in which the learning is to be conducted. The word for “quiet/silence” does not carry with it the meaning of absolute silence, but rather a respect and deference to the teaching that is going on. A good example of this is in Acts 21:12-14. The people in Caesarea were pleading with Paul not to go to Jerusalem. In firm resolve, Paul answers them: “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” The response from the Caesareans includes the verb form of our word here in 1 Timothy 2 to indicate a submission and acceptance to Paul’s resolve and authority. “And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!” Notice that their “silence” involved saying“The will of the Lord be done!” As Robert Yarbrough puts it, “This is attentive silence for the sake of giving someone a hearing” (Yarbrough, 172). This corresponds more to the need for women to learn properly in these settings. The danger of someone in the 21st century is to project onto the text a modern sensibility as if Paul was telling the women to simply “shut up.” Paul also uses this same word in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 to exhort his readers to work in a quiet or “peaceable” fashion. The Thessalonians working in complete silence is not what is in view there, but rather, the word is used to communicate a type of demeanor, or as Leon Morris notes, “inner tranquility in contrast to their present excited state” (Morris, 148).

What does Paul mean by quietly learning with submissiveness? In the assembled church, women are to submit to the “elders who rule” (5:17) with attentiveness as it pertains to the authoritative teaching of God’s Word. In the context of 1 Timothy, this submissiveness is not referring to a general submission of all women to every man. As Yarbrough points out, this would be “completely foreign to the discourse flow” (Yarbrough, 174). The submission in view here is to pastors and elders (cf. the universal command for men/women in Heb. 13:17). Lea notes, “The submission did not demand a surrender of the mind or conscience or the abandonment of the duty of private judgement. It was a warning against abusing the leadership of the congregation by disrespectful, boisterous actions” (Lea, 98).

2:12- “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

This verse is a continuation of the previous verse. Each prohibition in verse 12 corresponds to the command in verse 11. As if, Paul is saying, “Women should learn quietly (v.11), thus are not permitted to teach (v.12). Women are to be in submission (v.11), thus are not to have authority over a man (v.12).” Paul says what he says with Holy Spirit inspired apostolic authority. Women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in this context (the gathered assembly). Some try and argue that due to the present tense of Paul’s wording, this prohibition is only a temporary one. Essentially, some claim the meaning to be “at this time, I do not allow.” However, there are plenty of examples of Paul using a present tense to command something that is not temporary, but a permanent fixture. The nearest example of this is four verses earlier in 2:8. If we applied this same linguistic standard to that verse, we would admit that men could, at a future time, pray with unholy hands and with wrath. Paul also uses a present tense in Romans 12:1 to exhort the Romans to present their bodies as “a living and holy sacrifice.” No one reads this and assumes it was only a temporary command to only the Romans from Paul. In the book “Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15” Thomas Schreiner states, “In many other instances, such universal commands exist with present active indicatives in the first person (eg., Rom 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:16; 7:10; 2 Cor. 10:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 4:2; 1 Thess. 4:1, 10; 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6, 12; 1 Tim. 2:1, 8; 5:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; Titus 3:8)” (Schreiner- “Women,” 189). This does not mean the command has to be universal, only that the objection due to Paul using a present tense is a weak and untenable. Context is a big determining factor and like the command to men in 2:8, what Paul says is meant to be applied even today.

What does “teaching” mean specifically in the Pastoral Epistles (PE)? The public reading, exhortation, and teaching of Scripture as well as apostolic doctrine (4:13-16, 6:2-4, cf. 2 Tim. 2:15, 4:2, Titus 1:9). This naturally excludes women from the role of overseer as we will observe in chapter 3. To say much fuss has been made over the Greek word we translate “exercise authority” or “have authority” is the understatement of the century. I’ll note that the “fuss” only comes from those who in recent years seek to subvert the 1,900 years of historic application of this passage. Be that as it may, this is the only time in the entire Bible that the Greek word authenteō is used. Some argue that outside the Bible, the Greek word is used in a negative context to mean something like “abusive authority” or even to imply violence. Essentially, this would mean Paul is only forbidding women from having “negative/abusive” authority over a man, not simply positive authority in general. This meaning would have likely been the case in Classical Greek prior to the 1st century. However, in the Koine (common) Greek of Paul’s day and in which he wrote, the word does not appear to have a negative connotation to it. Al Wolters dedicates a 50 page chapter on the use of this word in antiquity in “Women in the Church” and has concluded that the usage in our verse “is very unlikely to have either a pejorative or an ingressive meaning” (Wolters- “Women”, 113). Beyond this, Wolters and others point out that the context in 1 Timothy 2:12 most logically warrants a positive meaning of the word as the positive function of teaching precedes it. Yarbrough notes, “Since “teaching” is a positive activity in the PE and in Paul’s letters generally unless the context indicates otherwise, the exercise of authority Paul prohibits is not something sinister or excessive but positive, just like the teaching.” Yarbrough writes that another way of stating it is that the two activities relate to “instruction and oversight” (Yarbrough, 180). For these reasons, most modern English translations render authenteō in a non-pejorative way: “have/exercise authority” (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, HCSB, CSB, NET, LSB, NCV, AMP, NRSV and RSV). For more info on the historical translation of this word, see “Objection: “To Have Authority” Is A New and Novel Translation of 1 Tim. 2:12” down below. The question we need to ask at this point is why? Why, Paul, do you not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man within the church? The direct answer is found in the next two verses and comes straight from Genesis 2-3.

2:13- “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”

The reason is not that women were undereducated in Ephesus as some would claim. For example, Paul was well aware of Priscilla, a gifted woman who had lived in Ephesus for quite a few years and discipled Apollos with her husband. The reason given is also not due to the Artemis cult so prevalent in Ephesus, of which there is no good historical evidence of a female-only priesthood dominating men (as some claim). There is no reference to any of this in the text. Objections like these seek to move Paul’s reasoning away from his explicit statement in these verses, which come from God’s created order and mankind’s fall. Paul does not point to some culture related issue, but to the creation of mankind found in God’s Word. What Paul is doing here (and in 1 Cor. 11 3-16), is giving Holy Spirit inspired commentary on the teaching in Genesis. This is not unlike Jesus, who argues from creation by citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 when asked about divorce in Matthew 19:4-6. The significance of this is that it affirms both one man and one woman as the only legitimate marriage union as well as God’s intent for the permanency of marriage. God’s design and ordering ought to be upheld. Paul is likewise using God’s created order and design by pointing to Genesis, both here and also in places like 1 Corinthians 6:16 and 11:8-9. If we acknowledge Jesus using the creation design and order to uphold legitimate marriage by appealing to Genesis, then we should be consistent in acknowledging Paul as doing the same in regard to sexuality, gender and authority roles (as well as Peter in 1 Peter 3:5-6). Paul, like Jesus, isn’t using Scripture in an ad hoc manner, but very intentionally. So then, what reason does Paul give for his command? “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Paul’s use of the Greek word gar (for) to begin verse 13 indicates his reasoning for the commands given in the previous verse. Thomas Schreiner gives 20 examples in the Pastoral Epistles alone in which Paul uses this word following a command that “almost invariably states the reason for the command.” Schreiner concludes that “this is just what we would expect, since even in ordinary speech, reasons often follow commands.” (Schreiner- “Women”, 200). In other words, it carries the meaning of “because.” Gender roles in the church are rooted in the creation order of God even before the fall and are meant to be universal. William Mounce states that “The most natural reading and the most lexically supported conclusion is that here γάρ [for] is not illustrative but gives a reason (illative) that v.12 is true” (Mounce, 132).

With that in mind, I want to spend some time studying these references to Genesis 2-3. Understanding the creation narrative is the vital foundation in understanding marriage roles as well as leadership within the church. God first creates Adam and places him in the garden to cultivate/work and keep/guard it. “Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” The two words are also used together to describe the work done by priests and Levites in the tabernacle. As the note on Genesis 2:15-16 in the ESV Study Bible states, “The man’s role is to be not only a gardener, but also a guardian. As a priest, he is to maintain the sanctity of the garden as part of a temple complex” (see also commentary by John Sailhamer and Kenneth Matthews in bibliography). God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then concluded that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:15-18). After creating all the animals, God tasked Adam with naming each of them; “and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” -Genesis 2:19-20.

“The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” -Genesis 2:22-23. 

In his book “Mere Complementarianism,” Denny Burk states that “in naming the animals, Adam excersiced his authority as vice-regent over God’s creation. Likewise, when Adam “called” her name to be “Woman” (Gen. 2:23; and later “Eve,” 3:20), he was exercising an authority that God gave to him alone” (Burk- “Complementarianism,” 110). Adam was created first and given authority to name the living creatures, to include the woman, who was made after Adam, from Adam, and specifically for Adam. Gordon Wenham points out, “that woman was made from man to be his helper and is twice named by the man (2:23; 3:20) indicates his authority over her” (Wenham, 81). As Paul is speaking of proper submission and authority roles in 1 Corinthians 11, the reason given for proper order in worship is found in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 

Proper worship in the gathered assembly is what is being discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 as well as 1 Timothy 2. In both cases, Paul points back to Genesis 2 to make the point. In other words, Paul, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is interpreting the creation order of Genesis 2 to mean a difference in roles between the sexes. Of the verses in 1 Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner note: “Paul’s statement that the woman was created for the sake of the man (dia ton andra) is based on Gen. 2:18. The context indicates that the man would have been the only one of God’s creatures without a corresponding mate, and that was not good. That the woman originated from the man and that she was made because of him points to the anteriority of the man (see 1 Tim. 2:13; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp 2.5) and evokes the concept of primogeniture with the implied prominence and precedence” (Ciampa; Rosner, 734). Primogeniture is a term used to describe the authority and benefit that comes with being the firstborn male. The entire context of Genesis and must be understood with this construct in mind as it was central to family order and the narrative found in there and in Israelite society. As Kenneth Matthews points out, “the priority of the man’s creation is important for recognizing leadership-fellowship in the garden” (Matthews, 221). Some may object to this concept as it would seem to imply that the animals are authoritative over Eve as they were created first. However, this objection fails to take into account that the concept of primogeniture applies within the human family. It is how humans relate to each other and has nothing to do the relation of animals to humans (who are made in God’s image). Obviously, primogeniture within Jewish society didn’t involve the first born goat as getting the family inheritance over the first born son that came at a later date. This objection is simply categorical error. As for 1 Timothy 2:13, Schreiner is correct in pointing out that “the readers of 1 Timothy would not have scratched their heads with perplexity and amazement. To the original readers, the priority of Adam in creation would naturally have suggested his authority over Eve” (Schreiner- “Women”, 203).

Not only are the origins of the man and woman unique and distinct, but also the purposes for which they were created. While the relation of both man and woman to creation was one of dominion and authority (that is, both man and woman equally have dominion over the earth-Gen. 1:26-28, cf. Prov. 31:16), man and woman, while equally made in God’s image, have distinguished roles in relation to each other.Genesis 2 is very important in the overall narrative of the relationship of mankind to nature, but also man and woman to each other. Mark Taylor thus states, “Paul’s argument derives from the larger biblical framework involving the husband’s relation to God and the wife’s relation to her husband according to the creation narratives of Gen. 1:26-27 and 2:18-23. Simply put, men and women have distinct origins and were created for unique purposes” (Taylor, 262). 

Yet, a truly egalitarian creation account would be more like:

1) God creating both the man and woman at the same time and in the same manner

2) The woman naming the man and the man naming the woman

3) Both the man and woman naming and classifying the animals

4) Both receiving commands directly from God.

This, as we’ve seen above, is not what we find in the creation account. Rather, God has a good order and design that we should take joy in as those who love God. Yarbrough thus concludes that in a worship setting, “tested men called overseers (see 1 Tim 3) are tasked with instruction and oversight as these responsibilities are assigned to Adam, not Eve. The godly woman who utilizes the worship setting to rest in God and learn is analogous to Eve before the calamity of Gen 3. It is Timothy’s task to preserve that space through those he advances to overseer rank and through his own diligence and example” (Yarbrough, 182).

2:14- “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

Paul continues his reasoning here. In v. 13, he appeals to the pre-fall created order for male leadership, in this verse he recognizes the subversion of that created order and the disastrous consequences that followed. Paul is not so much “throwing Eve under the bus” as he is acknowledging her own words in Genesis 3:13, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Paul’s point here is not that women by nature are more easily deceived and therefore should not be teaching. If this were the case, Paul commending women who teach their children and other women would make no sense (2 Tim. 1:5, 3:15, Titus 2:3-4), nor is that concept found elsewhere in Scripture. The issue for Paul is still one of proper authority roles as has been his point in this passage. As Stott puts it, “His [Paul’s] argument for male ‘headship’ rests on the facts of the creation and the fall. The priority of Adam’s creation established his headship (13), as we have seen, while Eve’s folly in challenging it led to disaster (14)” (Stott, 86-87). While the phrasing of Eve "challenging" Adam’s headship may be a bit stretched, I think it gets across what Paul is trying to show here. In both Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, it is Adam, not Eve who bears the weight and the responsibility of mankind’s fall even though Eve was first to sin. Part of Adam’s “priestly” function involved maintaining the sanctity of Eden. Yarbrough states that Adam “as the responsible primary caretaker should have resisted the serpent’s advance for God’s sake on behalf of both himself and Eve, the serpent found a way to subvert the one designed to be Adam’s “helper”... Paul’s observation in v. 14 is simply that the male leadership mandated in v. 12 is justified, not only in terms of a “very good” world (Gen. 2; cf. 1 Tim. 2:13), but also in a fallen world” (Yarbrough, 183). Schreiner concludes that “The Genesis temptation, therefore, stands as the prototype of what happens when male leadership is abrogated” (Schreiner- “Women”, 215).

Before moving on to verse 15, I think this is a good place to closely examine the results of Adam and Eve’s transgression by looking at the resulting curses on the woman. Genesis 3:16, “To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Any woman who has birthed a child knows exactly what is meant by the first part of the verse, but in what sense will the wife’s “desire” be for her husband? The only other time this word is used in Genesis (or in the entire Pentateuch) is in the very next chapter in Genesis 4:7 where God tells Cain, “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” John Sailhamer states that this desire “carries the sense of a desire to overcome or defeat another.” Sailhamer goes on to note that the wife “desiring” and the husband “ruling” foreshadows the Lord’s words to Cain of sin desiring and Cain mastering/ruling. If this is the case, “the sense of “desiring” in 3:16 should be understood as the wife’s desire to overcome or gain the upper hand over her husband” (Sailhamer, 58). Kenneth Matthews agrees, stating that “The “desire” of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function” (Matthews, 252). As Derek Kidner puts it, “‘To love and to cherish’ becomes ‘To desire and to dominate’” (Kidner, 76). The translators of the NET Bible similarly state, “In Gen. 3:16, the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle” (NET Bible, Gen. 3:16, tn. 49).

The significance of the curse in Genesis 3:16 is that the woman will seek to subvert and oppose man’s authority while the man will seek to “rule” over his wife rather than guarding and caring for her. What was meant to be complementary would now be distorted. However, (and this is vitally important), as we see in Ephesians 5:22-33, the call of the Christian wife is to “submit/be subject to” her husband instead of seeking to oppose or rule over him, while the husband is charged with loving and caring for his wife through self-sacrificial love rather than “ruling” over her in a domineering way (cf. Col. 3:18-19, 1 Peter 3:1-7). It is in this context that we, in Christ, seek to subvert the consequences of the fall. In other words, returning to and affirming our proper roles as man/woman; husband/wife is living out God’s design for us as we relate to each other. The whole theme of the curses in Genesis 3 takes what was originally good and perfect and corrupts and distorts them. Farming the land was good, but now it will be difficult and hard. Childbearing was good, but now it will come with great pain. Marriage roles are good, but now it will come with conflict and tension. It was a good and proper thing we see in Genesis 2 that has become harsh and distorted due to sin. Far from "propagating the fall” in affirming different roles, we should seek, as in Ephesians 5, to return to our pre-fall roles of harmonious submission and loving leadership. For more on this, see my detailed exposition of Ephesians 5:21-33: https://www.biblicalcommentariesbykoreynapier.org/essays/christian-marriage-ephesians-5

2:15- “But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

A good number of translations render the beginning of this verse “But she” (NKJV, ESV, LSB, CSB, NCV, NET, ASV), while the NASB, NIV and NLT render it as "But women." The reason for the discrepancy is that the Greek does not explicitly name a subject. It literally reads “de sōzō” (but will be saved). Since the previous verses speak of Eve in the singular, “she” seems like a natural choice. However, the verse then switches to the plural with “if they continue,” so some translations use the plural “women” to match that shift.

How is this related to what Paul has been saying up to this point, especially considering this is tied to v. 14 and the reference to Eve falling into transgression? I’ve seen some try to state that the difficulty posed in interpreting this verse is grounds to cast doubt on the verses that come before it, as if the simple understanding of women teaching and having authority is now in doubt. The understanding of the verses preceding this do not hinge on verse 15, just as the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 do not hinge on how one interprets “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10). We do not use the one obscure verse to interpret the clear, rather we use the clear verses that come before it to interpret the obscure. There are a few viable ways to understand this verse, none of which cancel out Paul’s teaching of proper roles within church worship and which make sense given his reference to Genesis 2-3 in the previous two verses. It makes sense to understand this verse as the conclusion of Paul's instructions to Timothy regarding the role of the women in the church. 

It also seems necessary to understand this verse as referring to spiritual/eschatological salvation as this is how Paul exclusively uses the Greek term sōzō in his writings, the examples in 1 Timothy being 1:15, 2:4, 4:16. One view is to see Eve as the one that shall be “saved” by the childbearing after falling into transgression. In the midst of the pronouncement of curses in Genesis 3:15, we get the first prophecy of Christ coming to defeat sin, death and the serpent. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Eve fell into transgression and needed spiritual salvation, and as the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20), she will be saved through childbearing due to “her seed” (the Messiah) coming into the world. Stott puts it like this: “in the context of Paul’s references to the coming redemption through the woman’s seed, recalling Genesis 3:15, would be most apt. The serpent had deceived her; her posterity would defeat him” (Stott, 87). The future tense that she “will be saved” is consistent with all believers past and present who “shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him”-Romans 5:9, or, as 1 Peter 1:5 says, believers are “protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Believers have salvation in the “here and now” by being united with Christ, but like Eve’s final salvation, it will not be completed until the age to come. In the second half of the verse, Paul applies this to all women as well (specifically with the Ephesian women in mind and their proper roles), provided they have faith that manifests in godly living (love and holiness, with self-control). These are what we would call “attending circumstances,” or in other words, the fruit that comes with being connected to the vine (John 15:4). The flow of verses 11-15 would then go like this: Women should be able to learn with quiet submissiveness (11), a woman learning in quiet submissiveness means they should not teach or have authority over a man in the gathered assembly (12), because Adam was made first, then Eve, therefore Adam had the leadership role (13), Eve instead took the lead and was deceived, thereby falling into transgression (14), but she will be saved in the age to come by the bearing of children (her seed-Gen. 3:15) just as the women in Ephesus (and all women) will be saved if they have faith that results in holiness, with self-control (15).

The second view I’ll present takes all of verse 15 as referring to the Christian women of Ephesus (and by extension all Christian women). In 1 Timothy 4:1-5, we see that part of the false teaching going on included forbidding marriage and consequently childbirth. Schreiner comments that “Paul selected childbearing, then, as a specific response to the shafts from the false teachers. Referring to childbearing is also appropriate because it represents the fulfillment of the woman’s domestic role as a mother in distinction from the man” (Schreiner- “Women,” 221). Somewhat of a parallel can be seen in Paul’s instructions to younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:14, “Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach.” The idea is to follow in the footsteps of the godly widows in 5:9-10. Schreiner points out that Paul is not trying to be comprehensive (Paul commends singleness in certain circumstances in 1 Cor. 7). “He selects childbearing because it is the most notable example of the divinely intended difference in roles between men and women and because many women throughout history have had children. Thus, Paul generalizes from the experience of women by using a representative example of women maintaining their proper role” (Schreiner- “Women,” 222). 

One of the criticisms of this interpretation is that it seems to imply salvation as depending on women performing certain works or roles. It is clear in Paul’s theology that salvation is achieved not by works, but through grace by faith (Rom. 3:19-4:25, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 2:16-3:14, 1 Tim. 1:12-17). It is also true that good works attend salvation (or are the results of salvation, to which we are constantly exhorted to produce). In Ephesians, after stating that salvation is by grace through faith, Paul goes on to say, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.- Ephesians 2:10. Certainly passages such as James 2:14-26, 2 Peter 1:5-11 and 1 John 2:3-6 teach the necessity of doing good works and obedience to the Lord. In 1 Timothy 5:6, Paul says that a widow who “gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.” Like the widows in 5:13, these would be examples of the opposite disposition and lifestyle Paul is advocating for in 2:15 (continuing in faith, love, sanctity and self control) (see also 5:10 and 5:14). Schreiner thus concludes that “The genuineness of salvation is evidenced not by childbirth alone but by a woman living a godly life and conforming to her God-ordained role. These good works are necessary to obtain eschatological salvation” (Schreiner- “Women,” 224).

Mounce, therefore, would sum up the flow of the passage as follows: “Paul sees the prior creation of Adam (Gen 2) as justification for male leadership in the church. He also sees Eve's deception in Gen 3 as a reason for women not to exercise authority. But lest he be misunderstood, Paul moves from Eve's sin in the Garden and her punishment to the Ephesian women and the fulfillment of the promise of Gen 3:15 that salvation extends to them. But they are to work out their salvation by accepting their role, one example being that of bearing children” (Mounce, 148).

Qualifications For Elders:

Paul flows from the reasons why he, as an apostle, does not permit women to teach or have authority over men in the gathered congregation, to qualifications for elders/ overseers of the church in 3:1-7. The Greek lexicon BDAG defines the word episkopē (overseer) as one who has “engagement in oversight, supervision.” This word isused interchangeably with “elder” (presbyteros) as in 5:17, Titus 1:5 and 1 Peter 5:1-2. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church” -Acts 14:23. Later in the book of Acts, we see that this is not merely a human invention, but that the Holy Spirit is active in appointing overseers “to shepherd the church of God” (Acts 20:28). This concept was not a novel idea at the time. Throughout Israel’s history, the nation had “elders” as spiritual leaders (Num. 11:16, Deut. 27:1, 31:28, Joel 1:14) and were even present during Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 26:3; 27:1, 27:20, Luke 7:3, 9:22, Acts 4:8). As Kevin DeYoung says: “Growing out of Jewish soil, the early church appointed elders to rule in each congregation. The leaders in the early church were initially the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2), but as the apostolic ministry literally died off, the elders became the body responsible for leadership and pastoral oversight in the church” (DeYoung, 333). 

John Stott states, “The basic conviction has persisted that some kind of pastoral oversight is God’s will for his people” (Stott, 89) and Mounce adds that “Paul sees the church led by its teachers, those who can preach the truth and refute error; its primary leadership does not lie in the hands of administrators” (Mounce, 186). G.K. Beale points out that the book of Acts constantly juxtaposes the “rulers and elders” or “chief priests and elders” of Israel with the “apostles and elders” of the church and concludes that “The function of the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and the Christian elders in Acts 15 appears virtually identical. Both are in an official position in their respective covenant communities to adjudicate whether a new theological idea is valid” (Beale, 822). As 1 Timothy was a letter to address false teaching in Ephesus, elders are crucial to the oversight and promotion of proper doctrine just as they are for all time. This is why he instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint elders as he does and why, as the authoritative Word of God, we should abide by what is instructed.

Besides the moral standards set forth, Yarbrough notes that “the Greek is explicit that the overseer is a male who, if married, has a female wife to whom he is fully and exclusively dedicated” (Yarbrough, 195). It is also significant that they must be “able to teach.” This is not a requirement for deacons, who are tasked with a variety of service needs within the church, but who do not take on an official teaching role. The necessity for teaching in the congregation rules out women, as has been established in ch. 2. That 3:1-7 is addressed only to men is also confirmed by verse 11 as women are specifically addressed there. In other words, if the whole passage was addressed and applicable to men and women, there would be no need to distinguish women deacons in verse 11 (for everything said in the previous verses would apply to women also). Nearly every modern English translation will supply masculine pronouns (he/his) in various places throughout the 7 verses when referring to an overseer (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB, CSB, LSB, NCV, RSV, AMP, MEV) as well as older English translations such as the ASV, KJV, 1599 Geneva Bible and the Tyndale Bible from the 1530’s. The prohibitions of women teaching or having authority in the preceding verses, overseers mentioned as being the husband of one wife and able to teach, and the specificity of women in verse 11 all indicate 3:1-7 as referring to qualified men. Below is the ESV as a representative example:

(ESV): “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

This can also be seen in the 1582 Rheims New Testament translation of the Latin Vulgate: “1. A Faithful saying. If a man desire a Bishops office, he desireth a good worke.… 4 wel ruling his owne house, hauing his children subiect with al chastitie. 5. But if a man know not to rule his owne house, how shal he haue care of the Church of God?”

In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul says that “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” BDAG defines the Greek word the NASB translates as “rule well” (proistēmi): “To exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head.” Here Paul is referring to those who have been chosen to lead, manage and teach the church. These would be those to whom 3:1-7 describes. It should be noted that an eldership position should not be thought of as one of “status,” but rather of a certain type of service. The model of one who is leading the church is none other than Christ, who did not come to be served, but to serve others. Consider what Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 20:25-28, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” In his exhortations to elders, Peter likewise instructs them not to be “domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” -1 Peter 5:3. While seeking to be an overseer is a noble thing as Paul mentions, it is not to be thought of as the “pinnacle” of ministry as if any who are not an elder are somehow lesser in the church or the kingdom. The vast majority of faithful Christians (men and women) throughout history were never elders. If Christ wishes to restrict this specific servant role to certain qualified men (as with the OT priesthood), it does not make anyone inferior. This doesn’t mean authority in and of itself is abolished (for Christ obviously has authority), but it simply defines its qualities. 

Objection: Cult of Artemis

A popular teaching I’ve read online and in books is that the false goddess, Artemis produced a hyper-feminist society in which it was typical for women to rule over men in a domineering fashion. It is this negative ruling over men that Paul is trying to combat and is the context behind 1 Timothy 2:12. S.M. Baugh’s chapter in “Women in the Church” demonstrates that the idea of a female dominated society in Ephesus due to the cult of Artemis is simply unsubstantiated. In fact, Baugh shows many examples in his chapter that point to men filling the principal political and religious positions that were typical of Greco-Roman society in the 1st century. Even within the lifetime of Paul, we have evidence that the Roman government could oversee religious affairs in Ephesus. Baugh cites the “Edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus” that dates to roughly A.D. 44 and shows the ruling authority “selling” the priesthood of Artemis to men who donate the most money rather than to qualified men (see Baugh- “Women,” 37-38). 

That being said, some women did serve as priestesses and even as notable wealthy patrons of the city, though this was by no means unique to Ephesus, nor did women make up the majority of these roles (see Baugh- “Women” 32-64). Nowhere do we find evidence of a hyper-feminist society that sought to dominate and rule over men. In reality, the society and culture in Ephesus is what one might expect of a Greco- Roman city in the 1st century. This leads Baugh to conclude that “Like other Greco- Roman city-states, its society was generally patriarchal, even though some girls and women from wealthy and influential families appear in certain places of honor and patronage both at Ephesus and other places in Asia Minor… Note, however, that while women functioning as patrons were always wealthy, they did not necessarily abandon traditional roles in their society” (Baugh-”Women” 60, 62). Beyond this, the internal evidence we do have in Scripture doesn’t lend support to a female dominated society in Ephesus, but the opposite if anything. It is the men of the city who took issue with Paul and his companions and took charge in Acts 19:24-27 and 19:35. 

Furthermore, in his article, “The Apostle Among the Amazons” Baugh says of this episode in the book of Acts: “It was the Secretary of the People (γραµµατεύς), certainly a man, who defused the excited mob in the theater by defending the goddess' honor (Acts 19:35-40). The Secretary mentions that Ephesus itself was "νεωκόρος of the great goddess" (Acts 19:35). This term, νεωκόρος, is frequently used for the individual or group charged with the oversight of a cult. Since women were not citizens of Greek πόλεις [cities] like Ephesus, it was the male citizen body of Ephesus—acting through its municipal officers, the γραµµατεύς and the all-male βουλή ("State Council")—who claimed the oversight of the cult of Artemis Ephesia. We can safely infer from this slight NT evidence alone that religious affairs at Ephesus were not exclusively in the hands of women ” (Baugh, WTJ, Vol. 56, 158-159). Though the cult of Artemis was integral to Ephesian society, there is simply no historical evidence to back the fanciful claim that the culture in Ephesus was such that women were ruling over men in a domineering way. The premise, then, that Paul is correcting errors due to some female dominated society due to the cult of Artemis has no basis and is a flawed lens through which to interpret 1 Timothy. 

For a thorough examination of the egalitarian claims around this topic and how they are simply unfounded, Mike Winger does a great job of looking into the sources of these claims to find out their credibility. His conclusion after much research is similar in that he believes to read the Artemus cult into the background on 1 Timothy 2 is “provably unjustified; it is demonstrably wrong to do.” Watch this video from 2:05:30-3:36:44… ALL The Debates Over 1 Tim 2:11-15: Women in Ministry part 12 (it took me a year to make this)

Objection: “To Have Authority” Is A New and Novel Translation of 1 Tim. 2:12

There is a claim by some in recent years that the Greek word authenteō has a “virtually unbroken tradition” of being translated to convey a negative connotation in translations throughout history, whereas 20th and 21st century English translations “depart” from this tradition by using a neutral or positive connotation. In other words, what Paul is forbidding is women having “negative/abusive” authority over a man, not simply authority in general. In chapter 6 of “Women in the Church,” Denny Burk cites Linda Belleville as a main proponent of this. Crucially, Belleville cites Old Latin translations from the 2nd-5th century in which she translates the Latin word “dominari” as “dominate/domineer over” a man. However, Burk is quick to point out that this is an incorrect translation of the Latin. “Whereas the English terms “dominate” and “domineer” carry negative connotations, the Latin term “dominari” does not. Belleville mistakenly reads this negative sense back into the Latin term. Other translations of “dominari” have avoided this error” (Burk- “Women,” 283). Burk then cites the Rheims New Testament and the Confraternity Edition of the New Testament as two such translations that render the Latin dominari in the positive sense “have authority.” Even within the Latin Vulgate, we see the term “dominor” used in a positive sense to refer to the rule of God in multiple passages such as Psalm 59:13, Judges 8:23, and even the rule of Jesus Christ in Romans 14:9 (Wolters- “Women,” 86). Beyond this, neither the extremely influential Luther Bible nor the Tyndale Bible translate authenteō in a pejorative sense. “Both of these translations were enormously influential, and both of them render the crucial term in a nonpejorative sense… Contrary to what Belleville argues, these old versions show that the nonpejorative rendering “to have/exercise authority” has an impressive pedigree in early Christian and Renaissance Bible translations” (Burk- “Women”, 284; 286). There is no grand conspiracy of modern translations to present 1 Timothy 2:12 in a manner that subverts translation tradition for the purpose of patriarchal non-inclusiveness. As stated earlier in the essay, there is good reason modern translations like the AMP, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, HCSB, CSB, NET, LSB, NCV, RSV and NRSV render authenteō in a nonpejorative way (“have/exercise authority”).

Objection: Galatians 3:28

This objection posits that because Paul says in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” therefore means that there are no longer gender roles. Thus, restricting eldership to men is arbitrary and dividing those who are “one” in Christ. However, Paul is referring to our status in Christ as justified before God. It does not mean that male and female no longer exist in their God designed roles just as a Jew doesn’t cease to be ethnically Jew, or Gentile ethnically Gentile. The point of this passage is that the people of God are not defined by ethnicity, sex, or social status, but through Jesus Christ. It does not matter if we are a slave, free, male, female, Jew, or Gentile, we are all united as the people of God. Galatians is specifically a letter in which Paul is combating Judaizers who were trying to convince many in Galatia that in order to be saved, they also had to become fully observant Jews (circumcision included). As Paul also says in Ephesians 2:11-22, the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been torn down. No one can be justified before God by keeping the Law. In fact, the Law only serves to condemn us as we are incapable of perfectly fulfilling it! However, Christ has done that for us and we can be reckoned as righteous through His righteousness by our faith! The primary thing to understand about this verse is that this is about mankind‘s relation to God, not about interpersonal relationships. It’s one thing to say that everyone in the church gets the benefits of sonship in Christ (as Paul is saying in Galatians), but it’s another thing entirely to say that there are no distinctions regarding function and roles within that group (which is not Paul’s point). Functions and roles within the church are simply not what is in view here. God’s desire is still that we submit to the authority of earthly rulers (1 Peter 2:13-17, Rom. 13:1-7, Titus 3:1) that wives submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-2) and that we submit to our elders (Heb. 13:17, 1 Peter 5:5). Our unity in Christ does not abolish God ordained interpersonal roles. A husband is still a husband and a wife is still a wife, and unlike other distinctions (such as slave/master), the male/female design and roles were established by God pre-fall and seen as good (Gen. 1-2). As it says in Romans 12:4-5, “For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” 

Using this verse in the context of marriage and church leadership roles slides dangerously close to a similar hermeneutic I see from those who like to point to this verse to argue for the affirmation of so-called “trans-rights” or gay marriage. As Timothy George points out, modern feminist theologians are not the first to take this passage as a formula for "eliminating gender distinctions and the unique aspects of masculine and feminine personhood derived from them” (Geroge, 290). George goes on to cite the second century gnostic work of the “Gospel of Thomas”, in which “Jesus” essentially tells his disciples they have to eliminate their sexuality in order to be saved. “What circumcision was for the Judaizers of Galatia, gender reversal became for the Gnostic heretics of a later age. For the Gnostics, creation and the material world were inherently evil. Since sexuality was an obvious carrier of this fallenness, it had to be reversed or neutralized in order to achieve release from the constricting ‘prison house of matter’ ” (George, 291). At a minimum, those who wish to take this passage to eliminate gender roles have an over-realized eschatology at the expense of the “here and now.” At maximum, this subverts and distorts human sexuality as designed by God. 

While I don’t want to be sensational, the dangers of the egalitarian hermeneutic and philosophy can be seen rather alarmingly in chapter 15 of the premier evangelical, egalitarian book, “Discovering Biblical Equality.” On page 4 of this chapter, Christa L. McKirland argues that “the Scriptures do not make maleness and femaleness central to being human, nor can particular understandings of masculinity and femininity be rigidly prescribed, since these are culturally conditioned” (McKirland, 4). Where does this ultimately lead for someone like McKirland? An open door for transgenderism as a legitimate means of becoming more like Christ. While she stops short of giving an explicit green light to transgenderism, her concluding advice seems to be that one should consider how altering one’s body (to include “transitioning”) might be done in a way that makes one more like Christ. This is implicit affirmation in the highest degree. McKirkland concludes, “The implications of this chapter, however, are not to provide a moral prescription for transgender persons, but to (1) show how gender-essentialist logic may actually be contributing to the internal angst of some trans persons, and (2) to emphasize that the priority of the scriptural text is on following Jesus, not being “real men” or “real women.” For those who are discerning whether their givenness should be altered, the New Testament rubric for any such choice (which would include all bodily modifications, not just those affecting sexual anatomy) is how such can be done in submission to the Spirit and in order to become more like Christ” (McKirland, 17, emphasis mine). This is not from a secular, liberal publication, but one that is broadly evangelical with contributions from respected evangelical scholars. This is where the philosophy leads and as I will continue to point out, where the logical implications of egalitarian hermeneutics leads.

Read Christa L. McKirland’s chapter here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6663380d3402a54001269789/t/670d377aec5fe809b9f76c49/1728919418943/DBE%2Bch%2B15%2Bwith%2BEndnotes.pdf

Objection: God Used Women Such As Deborah, Priscilla And Mary Magdalene

The argument I see most online seem to point towards all the godly women of the Bible whom God used in great ways. The augment goes, “If God can use a woman to lead a nation, or as the first witnesses of the resurrection, or to teach a man doctrine, then women can and should be ordained as pastors.” As stated at the beginning of this essay, I do not wish to reject the clear implications of Scripture in regard to women being used by God in a variety of ways. I can affirm with the egalitarian that women are not only used by God in Scripture, but have a vital role in the life of the church today and if we did not have instructions as to the order and structure of a church, the conclusion drawn would be more persuasive. The problem with the conclusion of the argument is that it infers way too much at the expense of explicit Scripture that states otherwise. Every example given makes the fatal mistake of a categorical error. The freedom of a woman to prophesy does not equate with leading or even teaching a corporate gathering. The gift of prophecy does not mean one is qualified to be an elder/pastor. A distinguishing mark of an elder/overseer is that they be able teach, not prophecy (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:9).

The same can be said of Priscilla and her husband privately discipling Apollos. Private teaching/discipleship is not the same as teaching and shepherding a corporate assembly. Women as the first witnesses of the resurrection and subsequently testifying to the apostles does not equate to leadership roles in the assembled church. The egalitarian wants to infer from these examples that women can and should be elders in the church. But these inferences go too far in light of explicit texts that speak to the contrary, and as stated, these inferences conflate categories. One can similarly point out the inference that because the OT priesthood were all men, Jesus’ twelve disciples were all men (to include Judas’ replacement, Matthias), the apostle to the Gentiles was a man, the leader of the Jerusalem church was a man and so on; women, therefore, should not be elders/overseers. While these might be supporting examples from inference, it is not these inferences that give the prescriptions for church authority and structure. That falls on the explicit texts that directly address the issue. The arguments put forth for why texts like 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2-3 should not be taken at face value are simply unconvincing and in almost every instance comes off as “kicking against the goads.”

I agree with the principle John Calvin speaks of with regard to Deborah and other women people often point to. That is, “Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.” (Calvin, 1 Tim. 3:12). In other words, exceptions do not negate the rules.

A great example of how certain scholars often stretch the roles of women beyond what the text of Scripture says can be seen in this brief article on Phoebe by Denny Burk: https://cbmw.org/2026/06/22/the-phoebe-hoax/

Objection: The Holy Spirit Has Called Me, As A Woman, To Be A Pastor

If what we “feel” like the Holy Spirit is calling us to do contradicts the infallible Word He has revealed to us in the holy Scriptures, then we need to seriously reconsider if that desire within us is from God, or our own flesh. Even a good desire oriented at the wrong thing, or carried about the wrong way can be bad. A desire to teach and train others is good. A desire to do so in a way that disobeys God and subverts His order is bad. Even with desires that seem virtuous, we must ask ourselves “why” we feel a need to pursue them if they seem to go against the ultimate rule of practice and faith, the Bible. Are we being honest with what Scripture teaches, or are we trying to find a way “around” certain texts we don’t like? Our feelings, preferences and desires should all be shaped by Scripture, not the other way around. Unfortunately, it seems to me that a lot of the objection to this specific topic is exactly that; our feelings and cultural environment shaping Scripture. However, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” We are reproved, corrected and trained in righteousness by Scripture, not our feelings. As we will discuss in the next section, there are ways that women can utilize the gifts they’ve been given by the Holy Spirit (such as teaching, discipling, evangelizing, etc.) that do not have to happen in the context of being an elder/pastor. So, someone may correctly identify that God has given them a teaching gift, but mistakenly assume that to utilize that gift, they necessarily have to be an elder/pastor. 

Roles of Women In The Church and Home

We cannot look at Scripture in terms of what women are prohibited from doing without looking at what Scripture teaches about what godly women are called to do! This is vital and to neglect this would be folly. The answer is that women have a crucial role in both the church as well as the home. I’ll start by acknowledging perhaps the most influential role women can play in shaping human society and that is teaching and training children. Proverbs 6:20 says: “My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother.” As mentioned earlier in this essay, Timothy had been shaped by both his grandmother and mother (2 Timothy 1:5, 3:14-15, cf. Acts 16:1-3). Ephesians 6:1-3 tells children to obey their parents and quotes Exod. 20:12/Deut. 5:16 (Honor your father and mother). This denotes the authority that both the father and mother have over their children. In the instructions to young widows in 1 Timothy 5:14, Paul not only wants them to marry and have kids, but “manage their homes/households” as the ESV, CSB, NKJV, NIV, NET and others render it. Yarborough points out, “The verb oikodespoteō used here refers to oversight of the household, not menial maintenance” (Yarborough, 281). The authority a mother has in the home is crucial and fundamental to society at large! Not only at home, but there are godly women in my own church who do an amazing job in our Sunday School program teaching the gospel and instructing the children in biblical doctrine. These are women who are gifted in teaching and have the crucial job of training the next generation in the ways of the Lord! My own wife has a clear teaching gift, especially when it comes to children in a way that I am very deficient in. 

Evangelism, testimony, and missionary work are absolutely a calling of both men and women (Matt. 28:7-8, John 4:28-29, Rom. 16:1-7). Not every woman is married and has kids, therefore ministry may look very different for such a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:34-35 proves this point: “... In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be devoted to the Lord and holy in body and in spirit. But a married woman has to think about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your benefit, not to place restrictions on you. I want you to do whatever will help you serve the Lord best, with as few distractions as possible.” (NLT). The point here is that a man or a woman who is married necessarily needs to be putting their spouses' needs above their own, not to mention raising their children. These priorities come before ministry. However, mighty women like Lottie Moon, Mary Slessor and Amy Carmichael come to mind. They were such women who never married and thus devoted their entire life to ministry and missionary work. One also looks to someone like Corrie Ten Boom, who not only worked hard to save lives, but shared the gospel and taught many women while in prison. As she also didn’t have a husband or children, she consequently could devote her life solely to ministry. Like the women in Romans 16, these women labored hard for the gospel! Anna in Luke 2:36-38 is a similar example. Widowed early in life, instead of re-marrying, she spent the rest of her life devoted to prayer and worship in the temple. Teaching what is good and training younger women is also a vital role for mature women in the faith (Titus 2:3-5). Prayer and intercession is crucial for men as well as women (Luke 2:36-38, Acts 1:14). Hospitality and meeting the needs of others is greatly needed in every community and church (Romans 16:1-2, Acts 9:36). There are a variety of ways women can serve the needs of fellow saints, which is precious in God’s sight!

As my last example, I believe 1 Timothy 3:11 to be speaking of either wives of deacons who were serving alongside their husbands as female deacons, or simply women deacons. The Greek word can be translated either “wives” (ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NET, NLT) or “women” (NASB, NIV, NRSV, NCV, LSB). There is no mention of qualifications for elders' wives as there is no female counterpart for that role. However, as verse 11 indicates, there is some sort of counterpart to the male deacon as either the wife of a deacon (who presumably assists in diaconal roles), or women in general who are deaconesses. Either way, it seems women were used in various service roles in the early church such as visiting the sick, teaching women prior to baptism, taking in abandoned babies, helping with the actual baptism of women, etc. (see Lea, 120 n.73; Mounce, 210-212). Early church father John Chrysostom states that Paul gives Phoebe the “rank of deaconess” in Romans 16:1. Also, Theodoret of Cyr notes of Phoebe that the church at Cenchreae “was so large that it even had a woman deaconess, and one who was famous and well known to boot” (Chrysostom; Theodoret, 356). It seems to me that the need for women deacons would have been a relevant one (as it is today). I see no compelling reason to limit the office of deacon to men. Biblically, it has nothing to do with teaching in the mixed assembly or leading/shepherding the church. There are reasonable exegetical grounds for 1 Timothy 3:11, Romans 16:1-2, other implicit Scriptural evidence, as well as evidence in church history of female deacons.

Conclusion

I would agree with Schreiner that “the complementarian view has the virtue of adopting the simplest reading of the text” (Schreiner- “Women”, 201). In that quote, he was referring to 1 Timothy 2:13, but in general this is the truth with many such passages (1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5:22-33, Col. 3:18-20, Titus 2:5, 1 Peter 3:1-7, etc.). I believe that there is a consistency with a complementarian interpretation as well. There is great harmony with these texts and the narrative of gender roles within Scripture, whereas egalitarians tie themselves up in exegetical knots to get around these “problem passages.” Egalitarians affirm that commands to men are transcultural (like the command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church- Eph. 5:25/Col. 3:19), yet they throw out the universal nature of the commands for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22/Col. 3:18). This interpretive whiplash exists not because of any good exegetical or historical grounds, but because egalitarians simply do not like one set of commands. A complementarian does not take this flawed interpretive approach. Rather, when Paul tells husbands to love their wives in a self-sacrificial manner, or Peter tells husbands that their very prayers will be hindered if they mistreat their wives, we believe and take that seriously! Similarly, when Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, or that the reason for male leadership is grounded in God’s design at creation, we believe and take that seriously as well!  As with other biblical topics modern culture would like to subvert, there is no good reason to overturn clear biblical teaching and the historic position of the church in regard to women as pastors. The difficulty and complexity of the scholarship only comes when objections and subversions of not only the clear and simple reading of the texts are raised, but also the calling into question the church’s historic understanding. Of course raising these objections descends into a scholastic nightmare of endless papers and books. If one is determined on making a square fit in a triangle hole, the toil will be immense, yet this is exactly what it appears like to me with a lot of egalitarian scholars.

A similar phenomenon can be observed with those who seek to undermine biblical sexuality and marriage by re-interpreting passages like Romans 1:26-27 as only critiquing a specific cultural practice, or calling into question the English translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. I fully agree with John Stott who says that “The danger of declaring any passage of Scripture to have only local (not universal), and only transient (not perpetual) validity is that it opens the door to a wholesale rejection of apostolic teaching, since virtually the whole of the New Testament was addressed to specific situations. Whenever we can show that an instruction related to a particular context, shall we then limit it to that context and declare it irrelevant to all others?” Stott goes on to say that “We might similarly argue that what Paul wrote about homosexual practice, simplicity of lifestyle, the uniqueness of Christ, world evangelization and many other topics was fine for his day. But times have changed, we belong to different cultures, and (some would add) we know more about these things than he did. So what he wrote has no authority over us” (Stott, 77-78). 

People will never tire of forcing God’s Word to adapt to the current whims of culture, and in my opinion, this topic is one of many. There is so much noise, debate, and confusion around this subject not because the Bible isn’t clear, but because just like other things our culture can’t stomach, the natural and clear reading offends our sensibilities. God’s complementary design for man and woman; husband and wife is good. God’s ordering for church leadership and authority is good. Gender roles corresponding to how God made us are also good. If we profess to submit to Christ, it is worth noting that Christ calls us to submit to civil authority (1 Peter 2:13-17, Rom. 13:1-7, Titus 3:1), to our church elders (Heb. 13:17, 1 Peter 5:5), for wives to submit to husbands (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-2), and for children to submit to parents (Eph. 6:1-3, cf. Luke 2:51). I take solace in the fact that “God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” -1 Corinthians 14:33. Certainly when we come to topics like this, the simplest reading of the text is the most coherent one.

Recommended Resources:

"Does the Bible Permit A Woman to Preach?" - Jonny Ardavanis: This 45 minute sermon is highly recommended. Johnny does a fantastic job bringing the truth of Scripture to bear and concisely addressing many modern objections. A great one-stop shop for concise and clear teaching on the topic: "Does the Bible Permit A Woman to Preach?" - Jonny Ardavanis

Christian Marriage-Ephesians 5:21-33: This is my exposition of Ephesians 5:21-33 and commentary on the roles of husbands and wives within marriage. There can be a narrative from egalitarians that women submitting to the leadership and authority of their husbands inherently leads to abuse. If, however, wives and husbands take Scripture at face value and apply it, this cannot be the result. I submit that it is impossible for a husband to be abusive to his wife if he follows the commands of Ephesians 5:25. 
https://www.biblicalcommentariesbykoreynapier.org/essays/christian-marriage-ephesians-5

Mere Complementarianism: Male and Female in the Image of God, Denny Burk- This book gives the clear biblical truth of what it means to be made in God’s image as male and female and the implications for how we function in marriage, the church, and society at large. This book concisely handles novel egalitarian objections to the plain reading of passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, Col. 3:18-19, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3:1-7 and even Genesis 2. This is a must read for every Christian in a world that constantly seeks to discredit and subvert God’s good design for male and female. https://amzn.to/4fKF0KN

Women In Ministry - EVERYTHING the Bible says and ALL the debates about it: I’ve linked a few of the videos in this series in certain sections of this article. If you want to go deeper in this topic and understand it in great depth, this is an incredibly thorough and exhaustive study that I highly recommend to anyone. It’s over 40 hours of video content that not only examines all the relevant biblical texts, but all the major and credible egalitarian objections to the historic complementation conclusion. Mike does a fantastic job examining the claims made by egalitarian scholars and demonstrates time and time again how they either fall apart exegetically or are simply unsubstantiated: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC&si=69O1iHTo195L17Wf

Bibliography:

Baugh, S.M., Burk, D., Schreiner, T., Wolters, A.- Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 3rd Edition (Köstenberger & Schreiner), 2016

Baugh, S.M.- The Apostle Among the Amazons, WTJ Vol. 56, 1994

Beale, G.K.- A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, 2011

Burk, Denny- Mere Complementarianism: Male and Female in the Image of God, 2026

Calvin, John- Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, 1 Timothy

Chrysostom, John- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 6

Ciampa, Roy E., Rosner, Brian S.- Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament (Beale and Carson), 2007

DeYoung, Kevin- Daily Doctrine: A One Year Guide to Systematic Theology, 2024

George, Timothy- Galatians, NAC, Vol. 30, 1994

Kidner, Derek- Genesis, TOTC, 2008

Lea, Thomas- 1,2 Timothy, Titus, NAC Vol. 34, 1992

Matthews, Kenneth A.- Genesis 1-11:26, NAC, Vol. 1A, 1996

Morris, Leon- The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, TNTC, 1982

Mounce, William D.- Pastoral Epistles, WBC, Vol. 46, 2000

Sailhamer, John H.- The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, 1990

Stott, John R.W.- The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, BST, 1996

Taylor, Mark- 1 Corinthians, NAC, Vol. 28, 2014

Theodoret of Cyr- Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Vol. 6

Wenham, Gordon J.- Genesis 1-15, WBC, 1987

Yarbrough, Robert- The Letters to Timothy and Titus, PNTC, 2018

*Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995): New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.