Introduction
Most Christians who follow social media are probably aware of the ongoing debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism, which refer to the roles of men and women in the church and home. This debate is perhaps at an all time high, because not only is there a good case to be made for both positions, but social media provides opportunity for a lot of interaction. For most of my Christian life I’ve been Baptist or Baptistic in my beliefs, which means I’ve always held to the complementarian position. However, a few years ago I began seeing good reason to suggest that the egalitarian position is what the Bible actually teaches. So strong and compelling is their position (contrary to what most complementarians think) that I eventually ended up embracing it for a while. Nevertheless, over time I’ve come to believe that I was wrong as I considered more carefully certain passages of Scripture.
While I still think there’s a good case to be made for egalitarianism, I believe there are three major keys that reveal the fundamental flaws of the egalitarian interpretation of Scripture.
I realize this is a very difficult subject for many, especially those who have had bad experiences under authoritarian church leaders or husbands. Nonetheless, the truth about this teaching doesn’t change in spite of the reprehensible examples of it. As we’ll see in this study, what happened in the fall of Adam and Eve (in their relationship with God via sin), is exactly why we do have those who abuse their authority, and why there is such a battle of wills between men and women, and husbands and wives.
In teaching the proper roles of men and women, I believe there’s an element to this discussion that is normally overlooked by complementarians, and that’s the spirit of the law. It’s the spirit of the law that brings grace and balance to the letter of the law. Therefore, within the three major keys, I’m going to talk about both and how we should apply them. I’ll talk about the letter of the law first.
Section One – The Letter of the Law
Hermeneutical Approach
I believe the most important hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible is to allow the New Testament Scriptures to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. Our understanding of the Bible begins with the NT, allowing it to shine its light upon the OT. It’s the NT that explains the OT. Therefore, the NT Scriptures have interpretive authority. Virtually everything in the NT can be traced back to the OT, because the NT fulfills the OT. This is true regarding our current subject. The Apostle Paul was obviously aware of this. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and in 1 Corinthians 11:3,7-9, he was taking his understanding of what happened in the first three chapters of Genesis and bringing it forward and applying it to the Christian life in the New Covenant era. In other words, he made a statement in these two NT passages (and others) and then used Genesis 1-3 to explain what he meant, and why.
With that in mind, we’ll go back to Genesis to determine what the actual roles were of both Adam and Eve before and after they sinned, and how we’re to apply it to our lives as followers and servants of Christ today.
First Major Key:
Adam: Prophet, Priest, King
Rather than just giving you the references, I’ll provide the passages too. I want the actual Scriptures under examination to be in front of you. I’ll then provide commentary after each that is pertinent to our discussion.
(bold mine)
(Genesis 1:26 – BSB) – Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.”
It’s important that we understand what actually transpired before and after the fall, before and after sin entered the human race. Once we get that right, then the words of the Apostle Paul make more sense.
God made humanity in His image. God also gave humanity “rule over all the earth.” Specifically, as we’ll see in Genesis 2:15-18, God gave Adam (man) sole authority and responsibility to rule as God’s vice-regent, ruling under God as His representative. What’s also important to point out here is that God is a Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Thus we see that Adam served under Christ before sin as His vice-regent on earth. It’s commonly understood that Adam served as prophet, priest and king, as a type of Christ. We’ll see this as we go along. Here we see him as a ruler or as a king over the earth. This is before Eve was created.
(Genesis 2:15-18 – BSB) — [15] Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. [16] And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, [17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” [18] The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.”
(Genesis 2:21-23 – BSB) — [21] So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh. [22] And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him. [23] And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.”
(see also Genesis 2:4,7-9)
Before God created Eve, God placed Adam in “the Garden of Eden,” giving him the sole authority and responsibility to “cultivate it and keep it.” This was the first temple or sanctuary of God on earth where Adam walked and talked with God as a priest of God.
We also see that it was Adam whom God “commanded” not to “eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Why? “for when you eat from it you will surely die.” This is highly significant, because we see Adam is given sole authority and responsibility in spiritual matters, as we continue to see him serving in his priestly role as God’s representative, as a mediator between God and Eve. There’s no evidence that God spoke to Eve before the fall, or that Eve spoke to God. I believe that is what we’re to see here. If Adam and Eve would have had children before they sinned, Adam would have continued in this same role to his family.
We also see Adam as a prophet, again as a type of Christ. Why? Because Eve hadn’t been created yet when God spoke all these things to Adam. Which means Eve had to have heard all these things from Adam, speaking the word of God to her, informing her what it would mean for their future if they disobeyed God. We see this lived out in Genesis 3:1-3, which we’ll examine in a bit.
Summing up to this point, before Eve was created, we see Adam as a type of Christ as king, priest, and prophet. Unmistakably, in the non-existence of Eve, sole authority and responsibility was given to Adam before the fall, before sin entered the world. In other words, we see Adam serving under Christ as his Head (1 Cor 11:3). None of these roles were given to Eve. This is a significant key to our discussion.
It’s important to point out that God didn’t create man and woman together, at the same time. This is obviously by God’s design. I believe there’s a purpose here that we’re to recognize. In the beginning it was all about Adam, about his commissioning and the establishment of his rule on earth. God’s total focus was on Adam. We see the honor that God bestowed on him, both in granting him the privilege of serving Him as His vice-regent on earth, but also in providing someone who was suitable for him, someone which the animal kingdom couldn’t provide (Ge 2:18-20). Thus it was Adam’s need that God first had concern for. Eve was created for the benefit of Adam (1 Cor 11:7-9), not the reverse. Their roles were certainly different. Eve did not share the same role that was given specifically to Adam before she existed. The importance of this realization can’t be overstated.
When we first read Genesis 1:26-30, it seems to suggest a shared role (I believe this is where egalitarians miss it), but this is to be understood in the general sense as a commissioning of all humanity. The details and actual order of events are given to us in Genesis 2:15-25, where we see that the role of authority was given specifically to Adam before Eve was created. Adam’s role was firmly established before God brought Eve into the world. As we’ll see later, this is exactly how Paul understood it.
(Genesis 3:1-3 – NET) – 1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’”
Here we see that Eve got her facts mixed up. She added to God’s command not to eat of this tree by saying that they were not to “touch it.” This mix-up is probably due to the fact that she heard it second hand. She didn’t hear it directly from God as Adam did, so it was passed on to her from him—who again, functioned as a priest and prophet, speaking for God. Either she didn’t quite understand or she didn’t recall the facts accurately. But the point is, since she was not serving in the same capacity as Adam as a priest-prophet, she didn’t hear directly from God as Adam did, because Eve was not yet created when God spoke to Adam about the two trees. Again, this is all before the fall, before they disobeyed God.
A question is introduced here that needs to be addressed. Why did the serpent (Satan) go to Eve and not to Adam? I think it’s fair that he did so because he recognized Adam’s authority and privilege of having direct communication with God. Therefore, he would naturally recognize Eve as being the more vulnerable of the two. In other words, he went to whom he perceived to be the weak link. Not that Eve was more susceptible to being deceived by nature (it should be obvious to everyone that men are just as susceptible to deception), but because she didn’t have the same role as Adam or the same privilege of hearing directly from God—at least not until God spoke to her after they sinned.
(Genesis 3:6-7 – NET) – 6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
In this passage we see the fall, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world and corrupted this perfect and pure order that they had enjoyed with God and with each other.
(Genesis 3:8-13 – NET) – 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
Note that in verse 9 it says that “God called to the man,” even though Adam and Eve were together. We also see in verse 11 that God reminded Adam about the tree of which He had given a “command.” It was Adam whom God commanded not to eat from that tree. Again, this is significant. God gave Adam the sole responsibility to lead as His representative. God spoke directly to Adam, not to Eve. It was Adam’s responsibility to lead Eve not only in the way of truth, but in faithfulness as a priest. Eve was the one who sinned first, but here we get an indication that God held Adam largely responsible because of his position. He somehow failed.
In verse 13 we see the first time that God addresses Eve directly. This is what God does when we sin. He brings conviction. Thus God spoke to each of them to bring conviction of sin to each.
(Genesis 3:16 – NET) – 16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”
EXB – You will greatly desire [the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband, but he will rule over you.”
NLT – And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
ESV – Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
CSB – Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.
NIV – Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
NASB – Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
In regard to this verse, the NET Notes are instructive:
NET NOTES: tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) 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. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
NET NOTES: tn The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.sn This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18-32).
What’s introduced here after the fall is not the changing of roles, as egalitarians typically believe (from equal or shared roles to different roles), but the conflict within the roles, the roles they had before the fall. Sin corrupted their relationship. No longer was there total peace and harmony between them, but now conflict. The battle of the wills had begun. The battle of the sexes was on!
Egalitarians believe that in Christ there’s equality of roles between men and women (Gal 3:28) which they believe is what Adam and Eve had before the fall. But again that can’t be, because as pointed out, before the fall Adam was the sole leader as prophet, priest and king. What we have now in Christ is the harmony between us within those same roles—or should have. The conflict that emerged after the fall is to be brought under the Lordship of Christ. In other words, men are to lead with love, grace, humility, kindness, gentleness, etc., just like it was before Adam and Eve sinned. In Christ that perfect pre-fall relationship between them within their given roles is restored—or rather is to be brought under His Lordship in order to be restored. Men are to lead with love, grace and humility, and women are to accept their roles with the same love, grace and humility, as the Holy Spirit enables us, as we yield to Him. This leaves absolutely no room for authoritarian, abusive leadership. Nor does it leave any room for rebellion on the part of women.
I think it’s validating that the battle that rages between egalitarians and complementarians over roles of men and women, is in itself a reflection of the conflict that erupted after the fall. We have yet to bring this under the Lordship of Christ. It’s only when we recognize and accept our proper roles that we experience peace and harmony.
To complete the picture we now need to go to the NT and tie all this together, which will provide confirmation of what we have found in Genesis. It’s important to demonstrate that this is the way Paul understood all this too.
New Testament Passages
(Still discussing the First Major Key)
(bold mine)
(1 Corinthians 11:3 – CSB) – 3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-9 – CSB) – 7 A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
After looking at the passages in Genesis, we know where Paul gets this from. God created Adam first and established his headship, not only as the first, but also in his authority as God’s representative over all the earth as prophet, priest and king—as a type of Christ. As the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus was and is Head of man, and “man is the head of the woman.” Just as man is subordinate to Christ, so is woman subordinate to man, because God created woman “from man” and “for the sake of man,” not the reverse. Woman is also “the glory of man,” just as man is “the image and glory of God.”
Considering that man is the image and glory of God (as a reflection of God), it points to God’s Headship and to man’s subordination. Likewise, considering that woman is the glory of man points to man’s headship and the woman’s subordination.
Adam was created by God (before Eve). He was also given authority and served as God’s representative as a reflection of God. Likewise, Eve was created from Adam and for his benefit. She was also given a subordinate role to the authority of Adam, who was a reflection of Adam. Thus, we see a Divine order here. The roles of men and women were firmly established before the fall, before sin entered the picture.
Therefore, the roles we had in a right relationship with God before the fall, are the same roles we have in a right relationship with God in the New Covenant of Christ. Or put another way, the roles we had under Christ before the fall, are the same roles we have under Christ as His redeemed, as Head of His people and His Church.
We must conclude that this pre-fall order of roles cannot be a matter of culture or that Paul is dealing with a specific problem in the church of Ephesus (1 & 2 Timothy). This goes back to the very beginning of God’s creation before the fall when Adam and Eve were in perfect fellowship with God and with each other—perfectly content in their God-given purpose.
Important Note: Where Paul says that “God is the head of Christ,” this is NOT to be understood as the Father having authority over the Son throughout eternity. As far as Jesus submitting to the will of His Father, it should be understood in his humanity, not in His eternal existence—for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence, co-eternal, co-equal. In the Trinity of God, there is one will and one authority and one center of consciousness, for the three are one in essence. Therefore, I believe the idea of ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) — also known as EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) — is a serious error. I believe it’s a false understanding of the Trinity. The authority that was “given” to Jesus (Matt 28:18), was given to Him in His humanity, but something He shared with the Father and Holy Spirit throughout eternity. When I say “shared,” I mean one authority, not one authority over the other. Nor is it the idea of three separate modes of authority that merely function as one (in unity). Further, this authority could not have been given to Jesus in His humanity if He didn’t have it in eternity. That alone invalidates ESS. Nothing could be given to the Son in eternity when God has existed throughout eternity as a Trinity, and with all authority as God. To be clear, while many complementarians use ESS to validate their position on the roles of women, many complementarians do not agree with ESS, such as myself.
Before we talk about 1 Timothy 2:11-14, we must first talk about the passage below, which is the Second Major Key.
Second Major Key:
“Church of the living God”
(1 Timothy 3:14-15 – NET) – 14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you 15 in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, because it is the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth.
This passage follows what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, as well as 1 Timothy 3:1-13 (qualifications for Elders & Deacons). He’s pointing back to what he previously wrote up to that point and explaining why he wrote it, which includes the passage in chapter 2—which is central to our discussion. It was to provide “instructions” to let them “know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, because it is “the church of the living God, the support and bulwark of the truth.” This speaks of the Church universal, and more specifically of local churches within the universal Church. This is actually one of the primary points that convinced me of the complementarian position, because it’s within the scope of God’s universal Church – the corporate Body of Christ – that Paul gave his instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13 (also Titus 1:5-9). It confirms that Paul is NOT dealing with cultural issues or some specific problem that was going on in that church. But rather, he was giving instructions to all churches within the Body of Christ.
With all that in mind, we’ll now discuss our central passage: 1 Timothy 2:11-14:
(1 Timothy 2:11-14 – CSB) – 11 A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
Like the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 (1 Cor 11:7-9), we see where Paul is getting this from. He’s getting it from the first three chapters of Genesis. He first gives the instructions about women in verses 11 & 12, and then gives his reason for it in verses 13-14, which is found in Genesis. His reason for prohibiting women from teaching or exercising authority over a man is not because of their culture and not because of some problem in their church, but because of the Divine order that we see in Genesis before the fall, before sin brought corruption.
In mentioning Eve’s deception, I believe the point Paul is making is that when she was confronted by Satan, she should have talked it over with Adam, God’s representative, before she ate from the tree. In not doing so, she acted foolishly. She disrespected and disregarded his authority. Thus, it’s male authority that we’re to recognize here. We’re not to make the same mistake Eve did, who “transgressed.”
I encourage you to go back to our discussion in Genesis and consider this passage in light of that. What we see is perfect harmony between all these passages, which have their roots in God’s design for men and women before sin was introduced. Their respective roles and purpose was fixed before that time, and even before Eve herself was created.
Since 1 Timothy 2:11-15 continues right into 1 Timothy 3, where Paul lists the qualifications for elders/overseers (no paragraph breaks in the Greek), I believe Paul prohibits the teaching and leading of women over men in those particular leadership positions. Context is everything. Paul first discusses the limitations of women in the church in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, and then associates it with the qualifications of elder/overseer in the next chapter. The two passages form a unit. 1 Timothy 2:1114 provides the teaching, and 1 Timothy 3:1-13 provides the application (also for Titus 1:5-9).
Third Major Key:
The Repeating of Scriptures
Applying what we learned from Genesis, we can also confidently interpret the following passages according to the same understanding:
Titus 1:5-9
Ephesians 5:21-33
Colossians 3:18-19
Titus 2:3-5
1 Peter 3:1-6
In Titus 1:5-9 we see a repeat of what Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 about the qualifications of elders (overseers). These are two different churches in two different geographical locations. One is in Ephesus (modern day Turkey), and the other is in the Greek island of Crete. The fact that these instructions are the same in both churches in both geographical locations shows that we’re not dealing with a particular problem within the church in Ephesus, or with certain cultural issue, or with an issue regarding the local religion (“Artemis of the Ephesians” – Acts 19:28). I believe the repeated instructions by Paul in both places indicates a doctrinal position regarding men and women in the context of church leadership throughout the Church age.
In regard to Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18-19; Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Peter 3:1-6, these all relate to the husband and wife relationship. While these churches were all in the same general geographical location of what is now modern day Turkey, they were different churches. In 1 Peter, he was addressing churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, all different churches or different Christian communities.
Thus, we see that these instructions in all these different passages and churches for women to submit to their husbands, must be understood as a general instruction for all churches throughout the Church age—not limited to one location or time period. I need to emphasize the importance of paying close attention to statements that are repeated in the Bible. There’s a reason for that. I believe it’s to affirm the wide application of those statements within the worldwide Church. It’s a point that we’re not to miss or misunderstand.
I think when we try to explain away all these united passages, we do a disservice to proper hermeneutics. It reveals a positional bias. I’ve been guilty of doing the same thing. But we must be sincere seekers of truth, regardless of where it may lead us, and regardless of how difficult it may be for us to accept. I’ve discovered over the years that the harder we have to work to prove our position, the more likely it is that we’re wrong. While I believe there’s a good case to be made for the egalitarian position, I think one has to work very hard to explain all these passages in their favor. It kinda goes back to the old saying, “we can make the Bible mean anything we want it to.”
What About 1 Corinthians 14:33-35?
(bold mine)
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35 – CSB) – 33 since God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Given that chapter 11 reveals that women prophesied (spoke God’s word) in this church (which Paul didn’t condemn), and given that the context is church order, it seems likely Paul is referring to women who were asking a lot of questions during the service while the prophets were speaking (which may have included women). They were apparently being disruptive, so Paul instructed them to ask their husbands at home. My understanding is that in those days and in the culture of those days, it was more common for the men to learn. Therefore, women would naturally have the most questions. What if the women were not married? Then you would use common sense. They were to be quiet during the church services and ask their questions after the service, where they could either talk to one of the elders, a friend or ask their dad at home. Paul’s point seems to be, don’t be disruptive. It’s a disgrace to disrupt a church service. Paul may also have had in mind that such conduct was disrespectful to their husbands (if they were married), who were also brought into the spotlight.
Section Two – The Spirit of the Law
Home and Church
First I want to talk about the husband and wife relationship, with our study of Genesis in mind. In Ephesians 5:21-33, Col 3:18-19, Tit 2:3-5 and 1 Pet 3:1-6 we see the letter of the law. We see the husband as head of the wife, leading the wife. However, what seems to be overlooked by most complementarians is that the Bible also talks about so much more than what we see in these passages and in these roles. There’s so much more we’re to apply to our marital relationships than what we see in those named passages. I’m referring to the fact that we’re not only to “love our wives,” but we’re to walk in humility, we’re to be kind and gentle and kind and gracious and selfless, always putting the interests and welfare of others ahead of our own. All those many many passages in the NT that list these character qualities, we’re to apply to our marital relationships. What we see in those passages is the spirit of the law, that balances out the letter of the law in our roles as husband and wives. We’re to give equal treatment to both.
To focus only on the “complementarian,” letter-of-the-law of these passages without applying all other NT passages about how we’re to treat one another, creates a harmful and toxic home environment. I know. I’ve seen it firsthand in churches I was in many years ago. Furthermore, I can look back and see it in myself in my younger years, to a certain degree. When men focus only on the headship of the husband, while leaving out the gracious character traits named above, it creates an authoritarian environment, which destroys marriages and homes. Husbands have to realize that their wives are not their children, and that they are not their servants. Accordingly, they’re not to treat their wives as if they were. We should never treat our wives the same way we treat our children. We’re not to demand obedience from them like we do our children. Such an understanding of the Christian husband/wife relationship is simply wrong! It’s not what the Bible teaches.
So how do we apply the spirit of the law in our marriages and in our homes? What does that look like in practice? That’s what I want to talk about next.
A husband who loves his wife, who walks in humility, who is kind and gentle and gracious, who puts his wife ahead of himself, who’s more concerned about his wife’s welfare than he is about his own, will allow his wife to be herself. He will allow her to live her life as she sees fit before the Lord, according to how God has wired her. She’s allowed the freedom and breathing room that a non-controlling environment provides, which gives her a sense of peace and joy and self-worth. Such an environment also creates a return of the same type of love and treatment toward the husband. Both must practice the same to achieve true oneness. Our wives ought to be able to enjoy the same freedom to live their lives and make decisions for themselves, as we do. This creates a healthy environment, and strengthens our marriages.
In regard to decision-making, the same applies. The husband is to respect his wife’s wisdom and opinion. She may have more wisdom than her husband does. They should discuss all matters before a decision is made (especially the most important ones), and never should be made before the two are in full agreement. A husband of Christ-like character will never impose his letter-of-the-law rights upon his wife. He doesn’t demand his way, or overrule his wife when they have to make a decision. He seeks unity in all areas of their relationship. They should seek to avoid any kind of power struggle between them. Only harmony. We have to remember, our children are watching us, and so is everyone else.
In regard to discussing the Bible in the home, like in family devotions, the wife should be allowed to share the Word just as the husband does. In truth, the Christian wife and mother often has a deeper knowledge and understanding of God’s Word than the husband does. This should always be recognized and respected by the husband. The husband and wife are one, and they should seek to live like it in every area of their marriage.
This is the way for a marriage not only to survive, but to thrive. For a husband to lead with an authoritarian attitude and practice is not only toxic and damaging to the marriage and home, it’s out of harmony with the character of Christ. Foolish is the husband who claims his “lawful” right, while leaving out the rest of how we’re to live and treat others—our wives in particular! With all this in mind, they should seek harmony in all things, and resist the temptation to dominate the other.
Again, the wife is equally responsible to treat her husband the same way. It will pay off big time if both are committed to it.
In regard to church leadership, the same applies. All elders or overseers are to lead and serve in the very same way they do in their homes, as discussed above. There’s nothing more undesirable or unhealthy than a church that is led by authoritarian leaders. It’s not the kind of environment that builds up the body of believers. On the contrary, it stifles it! Best advice I can give to pastors is to lead with love, grace, kindness and humility. That kind of leadership is not only wise, but in harmony with the character of the One they serve.
If you’re in a church with an authoritarian pastor or leaders in general, I would advise you to run from that place and never look back! I wish everyone was in the church I’m in. My pastor is a complementarian, but you would never know it. He doesn’t make an issue out of it. He leads in all the ways I’ve described in this section. I see nothing but humility in this man, with a real love for those who have been placed in his care. I can say the same thing about the rest of our elders, as well. This group of men do this better than any I’ve ever known.
Still dealing with the spirit of the law, what about the Scriptures that reveal women speaking God’s Word in the assembly of believers?
In addition to 1 Corinthians 11:5, this would include scriptures such as Matthew 28:5-10 (also same context Mk 16:1-11; Lu 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18); Acts 2:1-11,16-18; Acts 21:8-9; Acts 18:24-28. There’s also Miriam and Huldah the prophetesses in the OT (Ex 15:20; 2 Ki 22:14-20; 2 Chr 34:22-28).
This is a good question and needs to be answered. From my perspective, the only explanation that makes sense, as I mentioned before, is that the limitation placed on women in our church assemblies is in regard to leadership (1 Tim 2:12). In other words, women are prohibited from teaching as a church leader (elder, overseer, pastor), but allowed to teach in some other capacity under the authority and approval and guidance of the elders. I know that most complementarians disagree, but I believe the only clear limitation Paul places on women is teaching in the place of primary leadership. Beyond that, I believe it’s debatable. This is why I refer to myself as a balanced complementarian. I avoid the extremes, because I don’t believe God’s will is normally to be found in the extremes. Regarding the subject at hand, I believe the above passages of Scripture most certainly indicate a balanced understanding.
Each complementarian church must decide for themselves how to interpret the above passages. Perhaps God has shown us the situations in those passages to let us know that we’re not to take an extreme position on this matter, but that He allows room for the balance I’ve been emphasizing. If churches view this as I’ve suggested, then they must decide how this looks in practice, what’s allowed and what’s not. Some may conclude it’s ok for a woman to teach a mixed Sunday School class or to lead a mixed Bible study. Some may even conclude that it would be appropriate for an especially gifted woman to teach in the Sunday services at times when needed or when it suits the situation—either as a member of the church or as a guest teacher. I think many churches go to an unnecessary extreme, where women aren’t even allowed to read Scripture or pray in church—at least that’s what I’ve heard; I’ve never actually seen it. I think those churches would rather be on the “safe” side. However, I believe there’s such a thing as being too safe, where they end up with ridiculous limitations, where it’s all law and no grace.
But again, I believe it’s up to each church to decide for themselves how to interpret what the Bible allows for women teachers in the assembly of believers, beyond elder-teachers. A pastor is an elder. But not all elders are pastors. But all elders must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2). So this refers to elders in general. Therefore, a woman is not allowed to be an elder, who is expected to teach. But beyond that, I believe the door is wide open for them to teach in a variety of ministries and occasions.
What About The Priesthood of Believers?
Egalitarians believe that the priesthood of believers (1 Pe 2:5,9; Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6) validates their position. While I understand their point of view, I believe it falls short.
Both men and women in the Body of Christ are members of the priesthood, which points back to the priesthood under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, Jesus is our High Priest (He 3:1; 4:14; 6:20; 8:1), and we are priests subordinate to Him. It’s a place of spiritual leadership and service to God. This position we have in Christ puts us all on equal terms. Because we’re equal in this priesthood, egalitarians argue that women are, therefore, allowed and called to hold all the same leadership/teacher positions as men are.
However, we cannot come to that conclusion without tossing aside everything we’ve learned up to this point. Yes, we’re all equal in the sense that we’re all one in Christ, and we’re all servants of Christ. We’re equal in the sense that we’ve all been given the authority to speak for God, to speak God’s Word to others. That comes in the form of sharing the gospel message to others, or teaching the Scriptures. All of this is what makes us a priesthood of believers.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean there aren’t different roles or functions within this priesthood, as if everyone is allowed or called to serve in all the same areas of ministry. The fact that we all have been given different spiritual gifts, and have different areas of service within the body, proves that fact, because this applies to positions and ministries between men too. 1 Corinthians 12 is very specific in that regard.
Everything we’ve learned in this study should be allowed to guide our understanding of the priesthood of believers, and how we function together within that realm. What we’ve learned is that our gifting and calling must be in the context of proper church order, within the roles God has established for men and women in our local assemblies. This applies to the home, as well.
What About Galatians 3:28?
(Galatians 3:26-29 – NIV) — [26] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
We’ll end our study with egalitarianism’s foundational passage. Galatians 3:28 is the primary go-to passage egalitarians use to support their position. They believe that the “oneness” we have in Christ, where there’s neither “male and female” (“male nor female”), means that everyone has equal roles and equal positions, as God has gifted us—that it has nothing to do with gender. While I understand their thinking about this verse, they take it completely out of its context. Paul is not talking about roles of men and women in church ministry or in the home. In fact, he’s not talking about ministry or about the home at all. That’s not to be found in his discussion. Because that’s not what he was addressing.
Throughout this chapter, which continues throughout chapter 4, Paul is talking about the identification of the true people of God. Paul was dealing with the common understanding among the Jews that they were the true people of God. So this brought confusion among Jewish believers in Christ. Gentile Christians probably had questions about that too. Thus, Paul was revealing that the true people of God are not ethnic, but spiritual. Paul was revealing that the people of God in Christ encompassed all the people of the world: all races, all nations, all people of all positions and all levels of society, as well as both genders. He was letting everyone know that the true Israel of God are those who are spiritual offspring of Abraham (Ga 3:7,29; Ga 4:28,31; Ro 9:6-8), not ethnic Jews. The “children of God” are those who are in Christ, where all people-distinctions are done away with. That’s the context. Once Galatians 3:28 is removed from the discussion of roles of men and women, the foundation of egalitarianism weakens greatly.
Therefore, we must not make the hermeneutical mistake of making this “oneness in Christ” more than what the context is teaching us. To do so only leads to an erroneous and biased understanding regarding the roles of men and women. Context is everything. If we don’t stick to the context of Scripture, we can pretty much make Scripture mean anything we want it to. There’s a right way and a wrong way of interpreting the Bible.
Conclusion
In order to be on the right side of the debate, we must consider carefully the revelation of Genesis 1-3. We must consider carefully the context of 1 Timothy 2, which leads into chapter three about the qualifications of elders. We must consider carefully the significance of Paul’s reference to Genesis 1-3 in 1 Corinthians 11 & 1 Timothy 2–carefully and unbiased.
In spite of how clear this presents itself, perhaps most egalitarians will still not accept this interpretation. That’s between them and the Lord. Egalitarians are not accountable to complementarians, but to God. Egalitarian churches are not accountable to complementarian churches, but to God. However, whatever interpretations there are on the egalitarian side, they’re necessarily inconsistent with the roles of men and women that were established by God before the fall. What we learn there must be brought forward to the Body of Christ in the present gospel era. Jesus came to restore what was lost in the fall, and that includes the right attitudes and faithful practice of our God-assigned roles, as identified in this study. This is who we were in Christ before the fall, and this is who we are in Christ as His redeemed people today.
I’ll never criticize egalitarians for their position or go after them on social media (which, sadly, is a common practice), because I understand their point of view. It also causes ill-will and unnecessary division. I still think they present a good case. I just don’t believe it’s the correct one. Nevertheless, I extend nothing but grace to them. We all should.
One last thing. History and personal experiences have their place, but should never be used as a primary means of interpreting Scripture. It will lead to an erroneous understanding. I believe this helps explain why there’s such a major surge in egalitarianism today. I think social media and certain books have been a major contributor in that regard.
Blessings to everyone as we each try to work through this difficult subject.
