We are currently looking at how God designed ‘order’ for His Church. God the Father sent God the Son from Heaven to earth to seek and save the lost, build His Church, and “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). God the Son sent God the Spirit to “convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8), guide the apostles into all truth, and glorify the Son (John 16:13-14), who glorifies the Father (John 17:4).
One of the primary ways that God brings ‘order’ to His Church is through ‘qualified’ elder/overseers. We’ve recently looked at those church leadership qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Even as the apostles solved divisions in the churches they established, they taught their ministry partners how to solve divisions and teach elder/overseers in each church to do the same. Those divisions include both heretical and non-heretical schisms or disagreement. You can look back at earlier studies in this series to see both the qualifications and responsibilities of elder/overseers.
Women Teaching Men?
I was introduced to church leaders early in my Christian life. I met some of them while I was still an atheist investigating the truth claims for Christianity. Two of the men were university-level teachers, and one was an evangelist. I met many other church leaders after becoming a Christian. An early observation I made was that all of the leaders I met were men. That seemed to square with what I had read in the Bible, but it wasn’t long before that was challenged.
A woman who was involved in the music ministry of a church also taught a Bible class at her home. Women and men attended her home class, so that became a divisive issue in the church. The elder/overseers (all men) said that women were not permitted to teach men or have authority over them. They quoted from Paul’s first letter to Timothy as support for their position –
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Timothy 2:11-13
Some in the church disagreed with the elders, which led to a division among Christians about the issue. Who was right?
As a young Christian I wanted to better understand Paul’s command and what the Bible taught about women teaching men or having ‘authority over a man.’ Another situation that prompted me to study the subject was when some churches would not become involved with a popular evangelist because his advance team announced that a woman pastor would be on stage with the evangelist and other church pastors. While that kind of response might seem a bit strange to many now, keep in mind that this happened more than 50 years ago.
God’s Design for Women
To understand what Paul meant, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I needed to go back to the beginning – to another Spirit-inspired writing –
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Genesis 1:27-28
If we read Genesis 1 and 2 and stopped, we would believe that men and women share authority (dominion – רָדָה radah, rule, dominate). It would appear that Eve, the first woman, shared a position of authority (rulership) with her husband, Adam. So, why would Paul have a problem with a woman teaching a man or having authority over him? Let’s add more context to the earlier verses in 1 Timothy 2 –
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to 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. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:11-15
We have to read Genesis 3 to understand how and why things changed from God’s original design of men and women sharing joint ‘rulership’ in the world. The serpent in the Garden of Eden deceived the woman and she ‘fell into transgression.’ Here’s what God did in response –
To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. Genesis 3:16
The two English versions of the Bible that I used as a young Christian were the King James Version and the Amplified Bible. I found the Amplified helpful as I studied Greek and Hebrew. Here’s how each version translated Genesis 3:16 –
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. KJV
To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. AMPC
Two important phrases I had to consider were –
- Your desire shall be for your husband
- And he shall rule over you
What did God mean by that and how did those words change a woman’s role in ‘ruling’ with her husband? I went to the Hebrew language to get some answers. I was fortunate to have a good friend who taught Hebrew, and he loaned me some Hebrew dictionaries and commentaries by Hebrew language scholars.
The Hebrew word for ‘Your desire shall be‘ is teshuqah. It means ‘a longing, desire, an affection which is drawn out towards a superior.’ The only other two verses that use the word are Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. The Hebrew words for, ‘And he shall rule over you,’ are wəhū yimšāl bāk. The word yimšāl (mashal) means ‘rule, have dominion, reign, have authority over.’ It’s not the same word for ‘rule, dominion’ that we saw in Genesis 1:28 (radah).
So, what do we make of that? Something changed in a woman’s relationship to her husband because of Eve’s ‘transgression.’ What did it mean that her desire, her ‘longing,’ would be for her husband? What did it mean that her husband would ‘rule’ over her?
While God ‘cursed’ the ‘seed’ of the serpent (Genesis 3:14), and cursed the ‘ground’ for Adam’s ‘sake’ (Genesis 3:17), God made a promise to the woman as He was speaking to the serpent – “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15). As we now know, that ‘Seed’ promise was the Son of God coming from Heaven to earth to destroy the works of the devil. He would come through ‘the woman.’ We know that ‘woman’ was Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus Christ.
God said four things directly to the woman –
- I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception
- In pain you shall bring forth children
- Your desire shall be for your husband
- And he shall rule over you
Based on the Hebrew wording, it appeared that the woman would experience sorrow and pain in childbirth (and possibly child rearing), and that she would have a desire for her husband that would be different than what she would have experienced if she had not sinned against God.
One of the first Hebrew commentaries I read in the early 70s was Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. This was their thoughts on this part of Genesis 3:16 –
The woman had also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin. For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תּשׁוּקה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. “And he shall rule over thee.” Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the original relation, viz., that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other, which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.
I read other Hebrew commentaries that shared a variety of views concerning the passage –
thy desire, &c.] LXX ἡ ἀποστροφή σου, i.e. “thy turning or inclination,” with a very slight change of one letter in the Hebrew. But, again, there is no need to alter the reading. The two clauses present the antithesis of woman’s love and man’s lordship. Doubtless, there is a reference to the never ending romance of daily life, presented by the passionate attachment of a wife to her husband, however domineering, unsympathetic, or selfish he may be. But the primary reference will be to the condition of subservience which woman occupied, and still occupies, in the East; and to the position of man, as head of the family, and carrying the responsibility, as well as the authority, of “rule.” Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thy desire shall be to thy husband — That is, as appears from Genesis 4:7, where the same phrase is used, Thy desires shall be referred or submitted to thy husband’s will and pleasure, to grant or deny them as he sees fit. She had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and thereby had committed a great sin, in compliance with her own desire, without asking her husband’s advice or consent, as in all reason she ought to have done in so weighty and doubtful a matter, and therefore she is thus punished. He shall rule over thee — Seeing for want of thy husband’s rule and guidance thou wast seduced, and didst abuse the power and influence I gave thee, by drawing thy husband into sin, thou shalt now be brought to a lower degree; and whereas thou wast made thy husband’s equal, thou shalt henceforward be his inferior, and he shall rule over thee — As thy lord and governor. Benson Commentary
… and thy desire shall be to thy husband, which some understand of her desire to the use of the marriage bed, as Jarchi, and even notwithstanding her sorrows and pains in child bearing; but rather this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as follows: and he shall rule over thee, with less kindness and gentleness, with more rigour and strictness: it looks as if before the transgression there was a greater equality between the man and the woman, or man did not exercise the authority over the woman he afterwards did, or the subjection of her to him was more pleasant and agreeable than now it would be; and this was her chastisement, because she did not ask advice of her husband about eating the fruit, but did it of herself, without his will and consent, and tempted him to do the same. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
I found four varying views of the words in Genesis 3:16 based on the Hebrew words and comparison with Genesis 4:7 –
- the relationship between husband and wife would continue to be positive, though with differing roles
- the husband’s relationship would be negative towards his wife, while his wife’s would be positive
- the wife’s relationship would be negative towards her husband, while her husband’s would be positive
- the relationship of the husband and wife would be negative towards each other
An Historical View
Looking at the history of humanity from both the Bible and non-biblical sources, we see that men were dominant in their rule of households, cities, and kingdoms. While some women ruled in positions of power, they were in the minority.
What about ‘elder/overseers’ in the Bible? The first mention of ‘elders’ in that sense is found in Genesis 50 –
And Pharaoh said, “Go up and bury your father, as he made you swear.” So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen. Genesis 50:6-8
This concerned the burial of Jacob, also known as Israel (Genesis 32:28). Jacob was the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. The number of Hebrews in the land of Egypt at that time was a little more than 70 people (e.g. Genesis 46; Exodus 1; Acts 7 – Joseph and his family were already in Egypt when Jacob traveled there with his other sons and their families). Even so, we already see the idea of ‘elders’ of the house of the Pharaoh, the elders of the land of Egypt, and the elders of the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house. The Hebrew word is zaqen and means ‘old.’
The next use of ‘elders’ is found in Exodus 3 when God told Moses –
Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt. Exodus 3:16
The same word is used for ‘elders’ – zaqen. However, it is used differently than for just someone who is old. As I read through Exodus, I found that the ‘elders’ were men who held ‘leadership’ positions for the people of Israel. Here are a few examples –
Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel. Exodus 4:29
So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the Lord commanded him. Exodus 19:7
Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. Exodus 24:9-10
I found the use of the word ‘elders’ throughout the Old Testament and they always appeared to be men. What about in the New Testament? I found the same there as well. Whether for the ‘elders’ of Israel or the ‘elders’ of Christian churches, they always appeared to be men.
When Jesus, the Son of God, came from Heaven to earth and began His ministry, He chosen twelve men as apostles. After His resurrection and ascension back to Heaven, Jesus called another man to be an apostle, Saul of Tarsus (Paul). Women played an important role in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles, but they didn’t hold the position of ‘elder/overseer.’ So, why would churches have women in that position after the apostolic period if there was no precedent when the apostles were alive and speaking and writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Conflicting Views
I came across conflicting views during my search through the history of the Church. One view, known as ‘Complementarianism,’ sees men and women serving in ‘complementary’ roles in the home and the church. God values all of His people equally, but established differing roles for men and women after the ‘Fall.’ He has a plan for ‘order’ in the home and Church, even in the midst of a world that is in ‘disorder.’
Here are three examples from Paul’s writings –
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
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 the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:13-15
Another view is known as ‘Egalitarianism.’ It views men and women as equals in the home and in church. That includes equality in serving in similar roles for men and women. A Scriptural example used comes from Galatians 3 –
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
The idea is that God sees all of His people in an equal fashion, whatever their race (Jew nor Greek), position in life (slave nor free), or gender (male nor female). They are all ‘one in Christ.’
I would add that it is important to read the full context of all of the Scriptures used in presenting evidence for both views. Context often changes our understanding of a particular verse or small portion of Scripture. Studying Galatians 3:28 in light of the full context of chapters 2, 3, and 4 will help us understand its meaning and purpose.
I remembered Paul’s declaration in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 that an ‘elder/overseer’ was to be “the husband of one wife.” That seemed to support the view that only men were to serve in that church leadership position since men were ‘husbands.’ I would also add that God gave husbands a great responsibility in the home as well –
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33
How To Resolve Opposing Views
My primary concern as a young Christian was to follow God’s direction for His Church. It continues to be the same as an older Christian. It is vital to bring Him glory and finish the work He has given us to do. Jesus is building His Church and He gave the ‘pattern’ for the Church to His apostles. I believe we should follow that pattern and use it in resolving any opposing views.
What is not oppositional is that God loves all His children. We find that throughout Scripture. Christians with opposing views on this subject should not doubt God’s love for them or His desire that they love each other. The high command of loving God and others remains true in all of these situations. That doesn’t mean we disregard the ‘truth’ God has given His Church about how people should work together toward bringing Him glory, but it does mean that we demonstrate love to each other.
The history of ‘Egalitarianism’ is not that old. I found some references to the women ‘lay preachers’ in the 18th century, and ordination of women as ‘pastors’ during the 19th century. However, the ‘Egalitarian’ movement within Christianity grew rapidly during the 20th and 21st centuries. The rise of feminism and gender equality are often mentioned in relation to the growth of women’s roles as ‘elder/overseers’ in many churches.
If women leaders in churches are teaching ‘heretical’ doctrines, then Christians should address those issues first – just as they would with a man teaching ‘heresies.’ However, if women ‘elder/overseers’ are teaching ‘sound doctrine,’ then Christians from both views should be able to sit together and discuss what the Bible teaches about men and women in leadership roles in the home and church. If they can agree, wonderful. If not, then we know the Builder of the Church will sort it out in His timing.
Conclusion
We must be faithful in following the ‘pattern’ Jesus Christ gave to His apostles, who then taught and demonstrated that same ‘pattern’ to the early Christians. We can look to how the disciples of the apostles (known as Apostolic Fathers) and their disciples (Early Church Fathers) led the churches of the late 1st century, and the 2nd and 3rd centuries. What role did men play in church leadership? What role did women play in church leadership? I recommend the Bible as the ‘pattern’ and guide to truth in this and all other matters of importance to God. Though the writings of the earliest Church Fathers is helpful, their words were not inspired by the Holy Spirit as Scripture – unless they were quoting Scripture.
I reached the conclusion as a young Christian that God’s ‘pattern’ was for men to be ‘elder/overseers.’ I have not changed that view after more than 50 years of further study. However, that does not mean I believe men are always correct in how they lead or make decisions as it pertains to the Church.
I also want to be clear that the behavior of many male church leaders toward women has been very disappointing – even appalling at times. Their bad behavior has included verbal, physical, and even sexual abuses. This has been going on for centuries, but we can do something about the problem we face now.
Any church leader who is accused of abusing women (or children or other men for that matter), should be confronted biblically by their accusers along with the most senior and trusted ‘elder/overseers.’ Gathering the truth and being objective in the process is of paramount importance. If the accusations are found to be true, the ‘offending’ church leader should be removed from his position and the church should be notified of the reasons. He should apologize to those he abused and to the church. He should take full responsibility for his abusive actions. He should undergo a period of discipline leading to repentance. Just as we read in 2 Corinthians, the church should forgive a repentant church member. Whether that person ever holds a leadership position in that church or any church again is questionable, but that’s for the church to decide. A formerly qualified ‘elder/overseer’ who is no longer qualified would have to meet the biblical qualifications for the position again. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 should be used for that purpose. The type and extent of the abuse should also be taken into consideration before allowing someone to re-enter a leadership position.
I know this may sound harsh to some, but God’s Word is clear and we must abide by His Word if we are to bring glory to His name and finish the work he has given us to do.
Next Time
In the next part of our series, Order in the Court of the King!, we will turn to another ‘division’ in the Church that I experienced early in my Christian life. It concerns whether Genesis chapters 1 – 11 are to be understood as history or allegory. Can we resolve this division in a biblical manner? I believe we can and must.
Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1990-2025 GraceLife
GraceLife Blog 