I wrote this awhile ago.  This started from a conversation on social media regarding women in authority in the Church.  I was sent an article that was intended to be a biblically based response to criticism of women to be in authority.  I spent a lot of time reading over the article and the Scripture references given and responding to the piece in its entirety.  As you will see, I broke up the article into bite-sized sections and then proceeded to respond to those sections.  Everything in italics is mine. I realize the italics are a bit hard to distinguish from the standard text, I apologize for that. 

I spent the day going through this article and I’ve copied it and pasted it into a document so I could break it up into sections and respond to each. I pray you will consider my thoughts and more importantly the Scriptures I share as you read through this. As I mentioned in a recent blog, we should always be willing to hold up doctrines for inspection in the light of the Scriptures. I think this is a great example and I appreciate you sharing all this information with me to consider. Everything in italics is my response.

This is exactly what I believe because it is scriptural and that is the bottom line. This is a great read. we must be careful not to twist scripture or to give it a meaning outside of its context. —-Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20).

 To start off, I want to say that of course I agree that God has and continues to use women in ministry. However, it was extremely rare occasions where He put them in authority. Miriam is a prime example of a prophetess who was used of the Lord, but clearly Moses was the one that God had put in authority. And in fact, when she thought too highly of herself (and Aaron as well) God rebuked her pretty severely. (Numbers 12:2-14)

Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5).

God did use Deborah, but I would point you to Judges 4:8-9 specifically where Barak is rebuked for not being man enough to do as the Lord said, and a woman would get the glory for Sisera’s defeat.

Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).

Huldah was a prophetess, but Hilkiah was the priest. God used her to speak for Him, but even then she was not an authority figure. There are many prophets in the Old Testament. Many of the books of the OT were written by prophets, but there were many more who weren’t even named! Consider 1 Samuel 10:5, 1 Samuel 19:20, 2 Kings 2:3, 1 Chronicles 25:1. While some leaders were prophets, or at least prophesied, being a prophet did not automatically make one a ruler. The priests were actually the spiritual leaders, and only men could be priests. The prophets were many times, simply messengers for God. They brought the Word from the Lord, and then they left. The Word was authoritative, but the prophet themselves were just the messengers. God spoke to the people through the prophets because they did not have what we have today–the indwelling Holy Spirit AND the complete canon of the written word of God that tells us all we need to know. The early church also had prophets and prophetesses because they still lacked the authoritative word of God. In Ephesians 4:11-12, Paul mentions the different gifts given to the church for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry. Some of these are positions of authority, and some are not. My focus here is not to exclude women from ministry, the Bible knows of no such thing. However, it does not permit women to be in authority over men.

The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4).

We agree that women can and should be in ministry. None of these verses mention leadership or positions of authority. I realize that the idea of being a prophet or prophetess seems like one would automatically be an authority figure, but as I mentioned before, that’s not the case. As we’ve moved into the New Testament and the early church, let me point out the teaching of Paul regarding women prophesying–1 Corinthians 11:5-10. They were required to have their head covered, to show they were still under authority! Also consider Ephesians 5:22-32, with an emphasis vs 23 and 32. Paul is driving home the point that the relationship of husband and wife is to be an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the Church. Would we try to say that the Church should be over Christ? No, of course not, in the same way, women are not to be over men.

In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiaōo), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).

There is nothing in these verses that indicate or support the idea that women were put in authority over men. Women were extremely involved in ministry. And there are areas where they are called to teach and exhort–other women. Titus 2:3-4, is Paul instructing a younger pastor on some of the expectations of godly women. We started the conversation talking about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding women. Here’s Paul speaking to another pastor in another church about women’s roles. And of course, in Titus 1:5-6, he explains that elders are to be men. Another point to remember is the principle of sound hermeneutics. Whenever we have implicit passages, we must interpret them in light of explicit passages. Basically, we interpret the unclear in light of the clear. He mentions women as fellow laborers. He doesn’t say whether they are in leadership or not, he just says that they were ministering. Yet in 1 Timothy 2:12, he does makes a clear, unequivocal statement about women in authority. And throughout his other writings, he makes other clear statements regarding women and their requirement to be submissive. I mention some of these passages throughout this response. He never makes a clear statement permitting women in any situation to be in authority. This article references cultural expectations at times, which is actually another concept that boosts my position. There are many verses that command that men respond to women in a way that is fitting as a follower of Christ. This was a patriarchal society, and sinful man may be tempted to mistreat their wives and lord their authority over them. However, in both Ephesians and Colossians, we see a reminder to women to be submissive, and men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That’s quite a high standard! And yet in this patriarchal society we see nothing in regards to a clear command to men to submit to the authority of women in any form. Surely, such instruction would be needed for men, who need to be reminded to be loving to their wives!

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras,Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.” Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.

Here’s an interesting point, that I need to correct what I said earlier in my initial response about elders and deacons being men. It’s true that Elders are only men. There is no Scripture referring to women as pastors /elders. However, a woman could be a deaconess. The Greek word in 1 Timothy 3:11, could be translated “women” rather than “wives”. What we need to remember, is that the biblical position of deacon was one of service, and not leadership. Originally, in Acts 6, the deacons were chosen because someone needed to wait tables so the Apostles were able to focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word. Phoebe was a deaconess, but her ministry was most likely caring for the sick, the poor, and instructing women and possibly children. This would be a huge undertaking, especially in the days of the early church which understood the importance of hospitality and community. The term Prostatis is defined by Strong’s Concordance as “a female guardian, protector, patroness”. The NAS Exhaustive Concordance defines it as “a patroness, protectress” The NASB is credited as being one of these most literal translations word for word available. A patroness, or even a benefactor, to use your word, would be someone who was a support to others. When I hear patron and benefactor, I think of monetary or material support. There is no indication…no overtones…of a leadership position that put her in authority over men in the church. It’s simply not there.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source.

Junia was very possibly a female, and if so, most likely the wife of Andronicus. Them being named together, similarly like Priscilla and Aquila, in no way gives any solid support that she (?) was a person with authority.

Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.

Agreed! Ministry is a wide field of responsibilities, not limited to solely authoritative positions.

These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership. A Biblical Survey of the Role of Women in Ministry Of primary importance in defining the scriptural role of women in ministry is the biblical meaning of “ministry”. Of Christ our great model, it was said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served [diakoneōo], but to serve [diakoneōo], and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; cf. Matthew 20:28). The New Testament leadership modeled by Jesus portrays the spiritual leader as a servant, whether male or female.

I hope I have made clear that the women that were mentioned previously (with only the real exception of Deborah), were not actually in leadership positions. Yes, a leader should be a servant, but that does not make every servant a leader. And none of the Scripture used above proved that these women were in authority over men.

The question of human authority is not of primary significance, though it naturally arises as organization and structure develop. Genesis 2:18–25 Some expositors have taught that all women should be subordinate to adult men because Eve was created after Adam to be his “helper” (NIV; “help meet”, KJV). Yet the word ēezer (“helper”) is never used in the Hebrew Bible with a subordinate meaning. Seventeen out of the twenty times it is used, it refers to God as the helper. Eve was created to be a help (kenegdo) “suitable” or “corresponding to” Adam, not a subordinate.

Eve was created to be a suitable help meet to Adam. She was created for him. And she was to be submissive to him. Genesis 3:16 explains this (I go into more detail about that at the end of this article in response to the last statement.) 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 also explains it: most specifically verses 3 & 8-10. And as I mentioned, Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship of the husband and wife as an illustration of Christ and the Church. The concept of submission is extremely biblical.

Some argue that God created men and women with different characteristics and desires, and that these differences explain why leadership roles should be withheld from women.

Men and women are created differently. They complement one another. But the answer to the question of leadership is based in Scripture and not just basic biology.

Others attribute these perceived differences to culture and social expectations imposed on children from birth to adulthood. Physical differences and distinctive biological functions are obvious; but it is only by implication that gender differences can be made to suggest leadership limitations.

Again, this is not about culture, social expectations, physical differences, or biological functions. This is about clear Scriptural Teaching regarding Leadership.

Ministry in the New Testament is charismatic in nature. It is made possible and energized as the Holy Spirit sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts (charismata) to each member of the body of Christ (Romans 12:6–8; 1 Corinthians 12:7–11,27,28; Ephesians 4:7–12; 1 Peter 4:10–11). While some gifts are a spontaneous work of the Spirit and others are recognized ministry gifts to the Body, all are given for service without regard to gender differentiation. For example, the gift of prophecy is explicitly for both men and women: “Your sons and your daughters will prophesy” (Acts 2:17). The New Testament confirms that women received and exercised this gift of the Spirit (Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

There is no doubt that all believers have at least one, if not more, spiritual gifts. And we are called to use those gifts to edify the body and help it to grow. However none of this supports women being in leadership, especially in light of the fact that there is clear teaching forbidding it. It’s clear that women did prophesy by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, but that does not equate to spiritual authority over the church. The only position of authority in the local church is the Elder/pastor. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (by the way, immediately following his forbidding women to have authority in ch 2), we see that the elder must be a man, husband of one wife (better translated as a one-woman man), and in vs 4&5 it says he must rule his own house well. This is another concept we must understand and apply to this discussion. While parents raise their children together, the condition of the family is the responsibility of the father. Looking at the Levitical law, the narrative of Proverbs, and other passages throughout the OT and the NT instructing fathers and husbands, you simply can’t escape the fact that God puts great responsibility on men. What is one class of people that God shows the deepest concern for? The fatherless and the widow! They don’t have the men in their lives and they required care and provision. So in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, when Paul says, look at their family to see if they qualify to be in leadership, he’s not simply saying man or woman, as long as they have been good parents; it’s really just further indication of what these people know to be the natural, created order. MEN are responsible for their families. If they can’t lead their household well, they should not be trusted to lead the church well. This is not just a generic use of man that could mean man or woman.

If Peter found certain statements by Paul hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16), it is no surprise that we, removed by nearly two thousand additional years of history, would share his struggle in interpreting some Pauline passages. While the original audiences were familiar with the problems that Paul addressed, we are left to reconstruct them and apply his prescriptions as best we can in light of the larger context of his letters and biblical revelation. And we, like Peter (2 Peter 3:15), must respect and love our brothers and sisters who hold alternative interpretations on issues that are not critical to our salvation or standing before God. We only request that those interpretations be expressed and practiced in love and consideration for all of God’s children, both men and women.

We should always be loving and gracious to our brethren with whom we are united in Christ. However, God either permits women to be in authority in Church or He forbids it. It’s one or the other, and it can’t be both. And while it might sound harsh, one of us is actually sinning by conducting the church in a manner that is contrary to what God intends. That is why we must contend for the truth.

First Corinthians 11:3–12 The statement that “the man is the head of the woman” has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male superiority and to exclude women from spiritual leadership.

I need to stop right here to say…shame on anyone who tries to justify male superiority. The bible doesn’t teach superiority of man over woman, but it does teach biblical roles that are specific to the genders. While there is plenty of overlap, there are distinctions. And spiritual leadership is one of them. For women to be in authority over men was viewed as a terrible thing. (Isaiah 3:12)

Two alternative translations for kephalēe (“head”), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) “authority over” and (2) “source” or “origin.” Both meanings are found in literature of Paul’s time. Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning, leading to the summary statement of verse 12: “As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Even the relationship between the eternal Son and the Father—”the head of Christ is God” (11:3)—fits better as “source” than “authority over” (cf. John 8:42).

This is actually one of the most dangerous comments in this article. The concept of God being the source of Christ rather than the authority over Christ is actually an unorthodox and heretical teaching that some have used to try to say the Christ is actually a “created being” and not part of the eternal Godhead. The connection they try to make between 1Corinthians 11:3 and John 8:42 is not there and that is terrible and dangerous hermeneutics. God identifies Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for our sakes. They are of the same essence, but with distinct roles. Jesus willingly submitted to the Will of the Father for our benefit and for His glory. If Jesus refers to God the Father as the authority, we should not seek to redefine terms in a manner we find more suitable.

We don’t need vs 3 to mean the same thing as vs12. They don’t. The point is that men are in authority, but in vs12, men are reminded that while woman came from man, man is born of woman, and we all come from God. We have different roles but one is not less important than another.

Without attempting definitively to resolve this debate, we do not find sufficient evidence in kephalēe to deny leadership roles to women (in light of biblical examples of women in positions of spiritual authority, and in light of the whole counsel of Scripture).

As I mentioned before, this debate needs to be resolved because we are either permitting or forbidding something that is contrary to the will of God. Also, their examples (with one exception) were not actually examples of women in positions of spiritual authority–they were simply women who were in ministry, and ministry is simply not limited to leadership positions.

First Corinthians 14:34–36 There are only two passages in the entire New Testament that might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Since these must be placed alongside Paul’s other statements and practices, they can hardly be absolute, unequivocal prohibitions of the ministry of women.

Might seem to contain a prohibition against the ministry of women? I must sound like a broken record at this point, but we should not equate ministry with leadership. Leadership is one form of ministry, but there are many others. The position of deacon is one prime example of a crucial ministry that is one of service. The position is one of responsibility that represents the Church and they had to be spiritually mature and an example to the congregation. This does not indicate that women are ever expected to be in authority over men, especially in the area of teaching. These two passages are extremely enlightening regarding clear commands as to what is proper in the context of the church. Consider the context of these passages. 1 Corinthians 14:36-37, challenges those who would take issue with vs 34. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul actually contradicts every piece of evidence that was offered in this article that suggested that those women in ministry with him were teaching and in authority over men! He says, ‘And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.’ He’s not saying, Timothy, you should not permit those particular women in your congregation who are teaching wrongly to not be allowed to teach anymore. He is saying in no uncertain terms that he does not permit women teaching men! That is his practice and he appeals to the created order and the fall of man (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he is writing) to explain why it must be so. If he says he doesn’t permit it and yet he mentions all these fellow workers in the ministry, it must be clear that these women who were involved in ministry were not in leadership roles over men. Otherwise he is contradicting himself and the Word of God. Now, the article says we need to consider these two passages in light of other statements and practices of Paul. I agree. Colossians 3:18 tells wives to submit to their husbands. Ephesians 5:22-24 says this, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything.” That’s a pretty clear statement regarding submission and authority. Women are called to submit to their husbands. Men are called to love their lives as Christ loved the Church. This is consistent with what we see taught in 1 Corinthians 11:3. When we speak about headship, it’s about authority and submission and not “source” as was suggested. And as I mentioned in my earlier response on Facebook, authority and submission is in no way an implication of second class citizenship or inequality. God compares Man and Woman to God the Father and God the Son. Do we think less of Jesus Christ? Of course not, nor should we think less of woman for having a different role than man. So, considering these verses, it would be a very unnatural for a woman to be teaching and in authority over a congregation considering her husband would be expected to be in audience and now the roles are reversed in opposition to the clear teaching of the text.

Instead, they seem to be dealing with specific, local problems that needed correction. Therefore, Paul’s consistent affirmation of ministering women among his churches must be seen as his true perspective, rather than the apparent prohibitions of these two passages, themselves subject to conflicting interpretation.

There is a possibility that there might have been local problems that needed correction. Indeed, what church doesn’t have problems? However, his teaching is in the form of general principles grounded in the created order and not specific solutions for one specific congregation. There is no warrant to make the assumption that these commands are not applicable to the church at large. And again, his consistent affirmation of ministering women among the churches in no way suggests that these were positions of authority over men. Sound hermeneutics require that we interpret implicit passages in light of explicit passages.

There are various interpretations of what Paul was limiting when he said, “women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul uses a word to limit the speech of women (sigatōo) that previously has been used to limit the speech of those speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:28) and prophets if a prophecy is given to another person (v. 30). It is only under such specific circumstances that the speech of tongues speakers, prophets, and women are to be silenced in the church. Under what circumstances then, is the speech of women to be limited? Options include (1) chatter in public services, (2) ecstatic disruptions, (3) certain authoritative ministries (such as judging prophecies), and (4) asking questions during the service. It is apparent that Paul permitted women both to pray and prophesy in public worship at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:5). Moreover, Paul advised that those who prophesy (evidently including women) should be among the ones to judge prophecies (1 Corinthians 14:29). Therefore, as with Paul’s constraints on both men and women tongues speakers and prophets, it may be that Paul’s additional constraints on women have to do with other forms of disruptive speech.

The word silent in 1 Cor. 14:34 would probably be better translated as subdued. 1 Corinthians 11:5 acknowledges women praying and prophesying, albeit with a covering on their head to show that they are under authority. As I look over all these passages again and again going through this article and considering it and considering my responses, it’s helping me to see things a bit more clearly myself. I would say 14:34, is more about women being out of order than about having authority. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they are still not permitted to be in authority. The rest of the Scriptures, by pattern and command make that really clear. The main pitfall of this article has been to equate ministry with leadership and that simply is not the case.

While the precise nature of Paul’s prohibition in this text is a matter of ongoing study, we do conclude that it does not prohibit female leadership, but like the rest of the chapter, it admonishes that “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:40). First Timothy 2:11–15 The meaning and application of Paul’s statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:12), have puzzled interpreters and resulted in a variety of positions on the role of women in ministry and spiritual leadership. From the above survey of passages on exemplary women in ministry, it is clear that Paul recognized the ministry of women. There were obvious problems in Ephesus, some relating to women. Some women were evidently given to immodest apparel and adornment (1 Timothy 2:9). The younger widows were “into the habit of being idle . . . And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13). In his second letter to Timothy, Paul warned against depraved persons (possibly including women) who manipulated “weak-willed,” or “gullible,” women (2 Timothy 3:6). A reading of the entire passage of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 strongly suggests that Paul was giving Timothy advice about dealing with some heretical teachings and practices specifically involving women in the church at Ephesus. The heresy may have been so serious that he had to say about the Ephesian women, “I am not allowing women to teach or have authority over a man.”

This last line about heresy as a possible explanation to Paul’s prohibition to women having authority over man is simply wrong. The reason for his prohibition is found in verses 13-14 of 1 Timothy 2. Paul has no problem calling out false teachers by name and telling people to avoid them. He even does this in the previous chapter (1 Timothy 1:18).

Other passages show that such exclusion was not normative in Paul’s ministry.

They were not able to prove this. I am forced to disagree.

First Timothy 3:1–13 This entire passage has been held by some to confirm that all leaders and authorities in the Early Church were supposed to be males. The passage deals primarily with male leadership, most likely because of majority practice and expectations.

Most likely because of majority practice and expectations? No, but rather the created order of Man being formed first and being the head over the wife. This is evident throughout the world as the natural order of things that come from the biblical account of creation and Scripture’s constant patterns and teachings. I also mentioned earlier that considering practice and expectations due to the culture, if God really wanted women to be in authority in the church, He would have had to make an explicit command allowing it, because such a concept would have been so foreign. The silence on this is deafening.

But there is also significant support for female leadership. Typical of modern English versions, the New International Version translates verse 11, “In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect”. The NIV translators arbitrarily decided that the verse refers to the wives of deacons (even though there is no reference in the preceding qualifications of elders to their wives). However, the word translated “wives” is the plural of the Greek word gynēe which can be translated as either “woman” or “wife” depending on the context. Recognizing this, the NIV translators did include the word “deaconesses” as an alternate reading in their footnotes. But the NASB and the NRSV render the plural form of gynēe as “women.” Thus, literally, the verse is addressing the qualifications of women in spiritual leadership who, in this context, might easily be called “deacons.”

I spoke about this earlier, in response to the section about Phoebe. I agree with the statement women could be deaconesses. However, that was a role of service primarily and not authority. A deacon would be responsible over the affairs of the church, so that the apostles and later elders would be able to focus on teaching. This is not to say that deacons never taught, but within the purview of their roles. Women would not be instructing men. It was forbidden by Scripture, but also known by the culture (and keep in mind, it was a culture that God had established.)

Although the first-century cultural milieu produced a primarily male church leadership, this passage along with other biblical evidence of female spiritual leadership (e.g., Acts 21:9; Romans 16:1–15 ; Philippians 4:2,3) demonstrates that female leadership was not prohibited, either for Paul’s day or for today. Passages that imply most leaders were male may not be taken to say that all leaders were male, since the biblical record speaks approvingly of numerous female leaders.

These passages are not evidence of female spiritual leadership. Ministry, yes. Leadership, no.

Galatians 3:28 Those who oppose allowing women to hold positions of spiritual leadership place contextual limitations on Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Some interpreters restrict the meaning of this triad to salvation by faith or oneness in Christ. That truth is certainly articulated throughout Scripture. Yet the verse carries a ring of universal application for all our relationships, not just an assurance that anyone can come to Christ. “Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”—these are basic relationship principles to which faithful followers of Christ must give highest priority.

Contextual Limitations. They say that like it’s a bad thing. It’s not. Sound hermeneutical principles require holding fast to context. A ring of universal application? We are no longer holding to the confines of our basic roles? I feel bad for the slave who attempts to walk away from his job, because he thinks he has the same rights as the free man. That doesn’t work. That verse is about the glory of our equality in salvation, not about throwing off the constraints of the created order.

The God of the Bible “does not show favoritism” (Romans 2:11; cf. also 2 Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34; Ephesians 6:9). He calls whom He will and gives gifts and ministries as He chooses; humans must not put limitations on divine prerogatives.

I read all these verses, although I couldn’t make heads or tails of the 2 Samuel reference. The rest are talking about God’s justice and salvation. Apparently, once they criticized “contextual limitations”, they felt free to completely release themselves from such requirements. The context of those verses doesn’t apply to this topic at all. The Bible is not a book with a bunch of magic words that people can just grab a few and claim it supports whatever they want it to.

He does call whom He wills and gives gifts as He chooses, but He does not contradict Himself. The ultimate authority we have is His Word. The Holy Spirit Himself directed men to write the very words we find in Scripture. He will not act within the church in a way that is contrary to what He commands in the Bible. We must rely on sound hermeneutics to interpret Scripture because if the Bible can mean anything, then it really means nothing.

The strained relationship between Adam and Eve, including the statement that “he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16), comes as a result of the curse, making it clear that this was not a part of God’s original and durable design for humankind. In Christ we are truly set free from sin and its curse, which separate us from God and each other and cause us to elevate or demean according to race, social standing, or gender.

The strained relationship is not over the fact that Adam will rule over Eve. The strained relationship is that Eve will actually want to rule over him, but God will not permit it. It is Eve’s sinful attitude that is the result of the curse. Consider the fact that God also tells her that she will have great pain in childbirth. That is a result of the curse. By the logic of this last statement, if we are free from the curse (and man will no longer be in authority over woman) than Christian women ought not to have any pain during childbirth! We know that is not the case. This argument doesn’t work. 　

I spent the day considering your reasoning for supporting women being in authority in the Church. I have read every line and read every verse (multiple times) and I have to tell you, that the evidence does not hold up. The clear pattern and teaching of all Scripture is that men are to be in authority and women are not. This does not make men better than women. They just have different roles. Another major problem that I’ve mentioned numerous times is the fact that this article constantly equates ministry with leadership. This misconception is a big problem in the Church today in general. People think that “ministry” is a higher calling, and yet we are all called to ministry. We are called to share the Gospel and to disciple new converts so that they are able to not only conduct themselves properly within the church, but also in their roles as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and children. Also in the roles of servants and masters or employees and employers. New converts should be discipled so they can grow in this knowledge and so that they may also share the Gospel and disciple new converts. Much of the ministry of the Church is done outside of a building for meeting. It’s in the everyday lives of the believers. This idea is lost among many churches, and it needs to be reclaimed. There is plenty of work for men and women to do that doesn’t include teaching from the pulpit and exercising authority in that way and in the administering of church discipline. We should direct men and women to understand their God-ordained roles and to live them out. This is church life. I appreciate you sharing this article with me, and I hope that you will prayerfully consider my responses and especially the context of the Scriptures that we both have shared. I hope we can discuss this some more, when you’ve had a chance to go through it all. God Bless.