What biblical sin does a woman commit by leading God's people?

Theology
1

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). This passage must be taken seriously, but it must also be read in its setting and alongside everything else Paul and Scripture say about women. Paul begins the letter by leaving Timothy in Ephesus to confront false teaching: “that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,” because certain people were “desiring to be teachers… understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Timothy 1:3–7). Significantly, Paul first says, “Let the woman learn.” He does not say women are incapable of understanding or ministry. The word translated “silence,” hēsychia, can mean quietness or peaceful conduct; Paul uses the same word in 1 Timothy 2:2 for a “quiet and peaceable life.” More importantly, Paul himself recognizes women praying and prophesying in the church: “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth…” (1 Corinthians 11:5). He does not forbid their speech; he regulates their conduct. Paul also records Priscilla, together with Aquila, taking Apollos—a man “mighty in the scriptures”—and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24–26). Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:12 cannot mean that a woman may never teach a man spiritual truth under any circumstance. Whatever Paul was restricting in Ephesus, it cannot honestly be expanded into a universal prohibition of women teaching.

Paul’s appeal to Adam and Eve (1 Timothy 2:13–14) likewise does not say that because Adam was formed first, God permanently forbids women from church leadership. That conclusion is not stated in the text. Paul was writing to a congregation dealing with false teaching, and his immediate command is that women learn properly. Scripture also repeatedly shows God giving women genuine spiritual authority and ministry. Joel prophesied, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy… and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit” (Joel 2:28–29), and Peter applies this to the Christian church: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy… and on my servants and on my handmaidens… they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18). The Holy Spirit distributes gifts “as he will” (1 Corinthians 12:11), and Scripture nowhere says that women are excluded from those gifts.

The biblical examples are substantial. Deborah was both a prophetess and judge: “she judged Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4), and Israelites came to her for judgment (Judges 4:5). Huldah was a prophetess whose word was sought by royal and priestly officials, and she delivered the word of the LORD concerning Israel (2 Kings 22:14–20). Miriam was “the prophetess” (Exodus 15:20); Anna was a prophetess who publicly spoke about Christ (Luke 2:36–38); and Philip’s four daughters “did prophesy” (Acts 21:9). The Samaritan woman proclaimed Christ to her city, and “many of the Samaritans… believed on him for the saying of the woman” (John 4:28–30,39). Mary Magdalene was personally commissioned by the risen Christ to tell His disciples: “Go to my brethren” (John 20:17–18). Phoebe is commended as “a servant [diakonos] of the church which is at Cenchrea” and a “succourer [prostatis] of many, and of myself also” (Romans 16:1–2). Priscilla was a fellow “helper in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3–4) and helped instruct Apollos. Euodias and Syntyche “laboured with me in the gospel” (Philippians 4:2–3). Junia is likewise honored among Paul’s fellow workers (Romans 16:7), with the traditional reading identifying her among the apostles.

Nor does the New Testament establish a universal male monopoly over ministry. Christ gives “apostles… prophets… evangelists… pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11), while the Spirit distributes gifts according to His will (1 Corinthians 12:4–11). Romans 12:6–8 likewise speaks of prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, and leadership without introducing a universal female prohibition. Genesis 1:27 establishes that male and female are both made in God’s image, while Acts 2:17–18 declares that God’s Spirit is poured upon sons and daughters alike. Galatians 3:28 declares that in Christ “there is neither… male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” This does not erase every distinction between men and women, but it certainly does not create two classes of believers in which one sex is inherently incapable of receiving God’s gifts or doing God’s work. Scripture itself presents women whom God called, empowered, trusted, and used in public ministry. Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:11–12 cannot legitimately be turned into “women may not teach, preach, evangelize, prophesy, pastor, or lead.” Whatever specific problem Paul addressed in Ephesus, Scripture as a whole shows women serving, teaching, prophesying, evangelizing, judging, leading, and laboring for the gospel without being condemned for doing so. The biblical question is not whether a person is female; it is whether she is faithful to God, sound in doctrine, spiritually qualified, and genuinely serving the work God has given her.

2 Likes
2

Woah - nobody seems to be willing to comment on this one!

My wife and I have worked out a process that seems to work. When she goes off the rails, I just say “Honey! Calm down!” She immediately realizes I’m right, and makes me a sandwich.

Ba dump, pish!

As human beings, we are so quick to become suspicious of the humanity in other people. This is true whether we are called to lead, or called to follow.

For example, if a woman is teaching a Bible study, and a man disagrees with her, her first thought might be “it’s because I’m a woman”, and his first thought might be “it’s because she’s a woman.” Sad to say, they both might be right, but the truth is, they both could be wrong. It’s just hard to tell. In either case, the question that caused the disagreement might go unresolved.

Because it is certainly true that there are, generally speaking, differences in approach, and temperament between women and men, on average. So it may be true that God’s general restrictions are intended to bypass possible distractions in the conduct of ministry. Every teacher should therefore ease into their office, building a reputation that they can be trusted to bring God’s unsullied word, free from preconceptions.

That being said, I agree with everything you said. It’s got nothing to do with the value of the gender. Women bring a valuable, balancing perspective that men may generally not have, and vice versa. And I would add, whether it’s a woman or a man conducting ministry, honest humility is the essential threshold. If either is motivated to make a sociological stand of some sort, it’s only going to cause trouble.

All we do should be to glorify Jesus. If God wills, each person, man or woman, will have opportunity to minister to God’s people, as He sees fit.

3 Likes
3

I tried commenting this morning. I must have used some “trigger” words, because mine is still waiting for “Admin Approval”. I’m such a rebel!

KP

3 Likes
4

God put Deborah in charge of Israel for a while, didn’t he?

2 Likes
5

Yeah Judges 4 just says she was a prophet, and judged Israel, almost in passing. She gets the credit for defeating Sisera, and Jael gets the credit for killing Sisera with a tent peg through the temple.

He apparently misjudged the temperament of the woman (Jael) he was talking to. He made the mistake of assuming that, as a woman, she was there to serve him. He didn’t realize she was there to serve the God of Israel.

1 Like
6

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”

I’ve always thought that The Creator to be both paternal, and maternal.

7

Still waiting on admin aproval. 13 hours. They must all be out to lunch or something. Gheeesh!

8

@kv100
Great question.
You asked: “What biblical sin does a woman commit by leading God’s people?”, which I read like a rhetorical question; a statement leading toward a pre-designed answer, provocative in nature, and laden with assumption. Nevertheless, the accurate answer to your question is “None”, but allow me to offer a simple retort to what I think you mean. The problem is “Misrepresentation”

From my reading of The Apostle Paul’s admonition to his understudy Timothy, I think the Apostle explains his reasoning quite well. but not without the context. The broader context is an admonition to fervent prayer, so that Christians may “lead a quiet and peaceable life” in all Godliness and reverence:) (1 Timothy 2:5-7)

The apostle desires men (Gk:aner =adult males) to “pray everywhere” (in every place), lifting up holy (pure, without pretense) hands,
without wrath (Gk:orge = an attitude of angry covetousness) and
without doubting (Gk:dialogismós = an attitude of disputing).

This is how Timothy is to model Christian conduct for the MEN, this is how Timothy is to testify to The Truth among the men of the ecclesia.

Paul carefully places the words “In like manner” next. Don’t miss this connecting phrase. The apostle is telling Timothy how Women (Gk:gyne) are to also testify to The Truth, in like manner, “everywhere”.

“In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but (should adorn themselves in that) which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Let a woman learn “in silence” (Gk:alethes = without + pretense = verity, conformity to the true nature of things) with all submission" (Gk: hupotage = subordination). (submission comports to alethes, the true nature of things.)

Now, with that contextual background, I think the following becomes much clearer. Don’t you?

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, (because doing so would not comport to the true nature of things, it would not testify to The Truth of Jesus and His Holy submissive bride)

…but to be in silence (Gk: hēsuchía; stillness, tranquility, implies acceptance of her role in testimony to The Truth)

Why? The apostle reminds us…

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 2:8-15)

Meaning rather than being dejected, and humiliated for falling into deadly transgression, and bringing that death upon future generations, women will be delivered from that transgression through God’s great gift of humble submission, to God and to His church, bearing children for future generations of humble submissive disciples.

Your post implies that Paul’ prohibition of a woman teaching cannot mean she is incapable, or inferior, and it cannot be a universal prohibition of women teaching in any circumstance. I agree. Your points are well made. You also state: “likewise it does not say that because Adam was formed first, God permanently forbids women from church leadership.”. Again, I agree. But leadership and authority are two very different things.

Leadership is “one who set the pace for others”. Authority (the word Paul uses Gk: authentéō = auto = self + entea = weaponry = mastery, a self-appointed power over others) is rulership, or the responsibility over the lives of others. Leadership is the call of all disciples, leaders are people who are worthy of following, emulating, discipling under. Not only does the apostle not prohibit you from being a leader, he insists on it.

This is why I say “misrepresentation”: a woman who grasps the role of “superior” or “authority”, especially in the public gathering, woefully rejects her role of demonstrating the submissive character of Christ. Like the restoration of Peter after his thrice denial of Jesus, Jesus, through his gift of submission and chaste appearance to the woman, is restoring her, elevating her, and giving her the honorable role of one who testifies to the Holy character of our servant-savior. When a woman rejects this great gift, and rejects her testimonial role as representing The Bride of Christ, usurps dominance demanding to be placed into someone else’s role, she is simultaneously rejecting her gift of self-control, holiness, love, and faith.

In very many ways, the submissive role of a Godly woman is superior to the role of men.

Be you in Jesus!

KP

1 Like
9

Sorry, I missed this somehow. This is an excellent breakdown. You’ve rightly shown that 1 Timothy 2 must be read alongside the rest of Scripture, where God clearly calls, equips, and authorizes women like Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia.

Adding to your point on the Ephesian context makes Paul’s instructions even clearer. The Cult of Artemis: Ephesus was the center of Artemis worship, a mother-goddess cult dominated by priestesses who taught female superiority and primacy. Paul’s reminder that “Adam was formed first” (1 Tim 2:13) refutes local Ephesian myth, not a universal prohibition on women.

“Let the Woman Learn”: Most first-century women were denied formal education and were vulnerable to false teachers (2 Tim 3:6). Paul’s command for women to learn was progressive, ensuring they were soundly instructed before teaching others.

Paul uses authenteō (translated as “usurp authority”), a word appearing nowhere else in the New Testament. Unlike standard words for healthy leadership (exousia), authenteō carried connotations of domineering control. Paul was stopping aggressive, uninstructed takeovers, not Spirit-led ministry. God evaluates leaders by their faithfulness, sound doctrine, and spiritual fruit. Not their gender.

Be blessed, be a blessing, and Jesus is LORD!

Peter

1 Like
10

And then she patched up the wounds on your head. :joy:

Be blessed,

Peter

1 Like
11

Pastor @PeterC.

Thanks for “approving” my post.

I appreciate that you mention places in scripture where

Let me testify to a couple of things. First, I am familiar with the normal response to questions like kv100’s. Most read like defending Paul, trying to soften his rhetoric, and pointing to women in the Bible who played important roles in Gods plan of salvation. From my point of view, even including our Holy Bible, there are no ancient literature texts, from the first century, that even hint at some form of equality of the sexes. There are even no ancient texts, from the first century, including our Holy Bible, that suggest the Ephesian cult of Diana (Artemis) taught any form of female superiority. The cult of Artemis seems to promote hedonism, a socially accepted situation where men were the “takers” and women were the “taken”. In the first century, and for all of history prior, misogyny was normal, and mostly unquestioned. The men thought themselves superior, and women also thought men were superior, and no one questioned it. Even Deborah, 1200 years prior to Paul held no official position among the tribes of Israel, wielded no authority, was no warrior, but was a woman who listened to God, (prophetess) and God spoke to His people through her. When God revealed to her that Israel was to

‘Go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor; take with you ten thousand men of the sons of Naphtali and of the sons of Zebulun; and against you (Israel) I will deploy Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude at the River Kishon; and I will deliver him into your (Israel’s) hand’?" (Judges 4:6-7)

She called a man to do the task.

Then she sent and called for Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali,… (Judges 4:6)

When Barak said he would not go without her, he was saying he would not go without knowing The Lord was going with them, without knowing someone at the battlefront could hear from God. Deborah reveals to Barak that he will win, but he will not receive the glory of the victory. The people of Israel will speak of God killing the most feared warrior Sisera with the hand of a woman. This God did to bring shame on the armies of King Jabin; Sisera, as you know, was killed by a cunning Kenite woman, Jael. Being killed in battle by a woman was the ultimate shame. Remember wicked Abimelech?

Then Abimelech went to Thebez, and he encamped against Thebez and took it. But there was a strong tower in the city, and all the men and women–all the people of the city–fled there and shut themselves in; then they went up to the top of the tower. So Abimelech came as far as the tower and fought against it; and he drew near the door of the tower to burn it with fire. But a certain woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull. Then he called quickly to the young man, his armorbearer, and said to him, "Draw your sword and kill me, lest men say of me, ‘A woman killed him.’ " So his young man thrust him through, and he died. And when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, they departed, every man to his place. (Judges 9:50-55)

Until the first century, until Jesus recognized women while elevating them to an equal spiritual status with men, women (especially virgins) were regularly bought, sold, given away, killed for small infractions with impunity, and exploited at the whims of men. It was not socially unacceptable for men to marry multiple women, and to have sexual relations with other women who were not their wife. This is true of many of the patriarchs. Men found this behavior OK, and women found this behavior OK. This is unimaginable to our twenty-first century mores, but we do not protect the scriptures by injecting our modern mores into first century society. (I’m not suggesting you are doing that, just pointing it out for our readers.)

It was a RADICAL departure from social norms for Jesus to openly recognize the intrinsic rights and value of women. For almost 5000 years of recorded history, women were considered “human resources” (one of the most demeaning thing you can say about someone, btw), and God barely did anything to correct it. Women were not socailly equal to men, but they did have influence….

But King Solomon loved many foreign women, … he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; (1 Kings 11:1-4)

This is not to say that the world had no women rulers (authorities), it surely did. But, not in God’s covenant people who lives testifed to the ideals of The One True God. Today, the Church testifies to the ideals of The One True God. We do testify with our rhetoric, but we testify much more profoundly with our lives. We are to “exemplify” The Kingdom of God in our word AND in our comportment. Our lives are to “demonstrate” life in The Kingdom of God, in every way, and in every situation. (see he sermon on the mount). It is within this radical demonstrative testimony that Paul reminds Timothy

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. (1 Timothy 2:11-12 )

This is not because she is unequal to any man, but that she is given the special testimony of faith, living not by authority, but living by God’s word. Her chaste, humble deportment within the Ephesian community demonstrates her radical trust in The One True God. Like the Apostle, she is given a role; her life serves “as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” . A woman who desires authority desires to misrepresent the Bride of Christ, a woman who seeks after recognition, or approval has missed the honorable recognition and approval of God Himself.

KP

1 Like
12

You’re welcome. Sorry it took a bit; I’m offline on Saturdays. Your historical context regarding the ancient world’s treatment of women is spot-on, and you rightly highlight how radically Jesus elevated women in a culture that viewed them as second-class citizens.

However, I see a few significant historical and textual tension points in your final application regarding Deborah and 1 Timothy 2: Deborah did hold Judicial & National Authority. You mentioned that Deborah held no official position and wielded no authority. But Judges 4:4–5 explicitly tells us that Deborah “was judging Israel at that time” and that the Israelites went up to her “to have their disputes decided.”

Holding court and issuing binding judicial decisions over God’s covenant people is the very definition of wielding official authority. God did not merely use her as a private mouthpiece; He placed her at the highest judicial seat in the nation. If a woman leading or exercising authority over men is inherently a violation of God’s design or a “misrepresentation of the Bride,” God would not have established Deborah as a Judge over Israel.

You rightly noted that Jesus brought a radical departure from 5,000 years of pagan misogyny, restoring the intrinsic value of women. But if Christ broke into history to abolish those fallen social hierarchies and make men and women co-heirs in His Kingdom, why would Paul turn around in 1 Timothy 2 and re-impose the exact same cultural hierarchy of female silence that the surrounding pagan world already practiced?

To claim that a woman seeking to exercise her God-given gifts in leadership is “desiring to misrepresent the Bride of Christ” assigns a negative motive to something God Himself commanded women like Deborah, Huldah (2 Kings 22), Phoebe (Romans 16:1), and Junia (Romans 16:7) to do.

What is 1 Timothy 2 actually addressing? When Paul writes to Timothy in Ephesus, he isn’t setting up a general rule about women “demonstrating radical trust by remaining silent.” He is addressing a specific local crisis in Ephesus involving false teachers who were deceiving women (1 Timothy 5:13; 2 Timothy 3:6). Paul’s rationale in 1 Timothy 2:13–14 points directly to Eve being deceived. A direct reference to uninstructed people asserting authority without proper teaching.

If a woman serving as a shepherd or leader in God’s church were a sin, it would have to be because it violates a moral law of God. Yet, nowhere in the Torah or the Law is female leadership listed as a sin. In fact, when God lists leaders who saved His people, He lists Deborah right alongside Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah (1 Samuel 12:11). If God called and empowered women to judge, prophesy, and lead His people in the Old and New Testaments, leadership itself cannot be inherently sinful or unwomanly.

Something to think about.

Blessings,

Peter

1 Like
13

I get amazed at how many miss what Paul’s punchline statement was in 1 Corinthians 14:36…

1 Cor 14:34-36
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
KJV

However, Paul was clear that women were not to lord it over the man.

1 Tim 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
KJV

That doesn’t mean the woman cannot spread The Gospel with others, just not as a head over a congregation, like a pastor.

14

My Brother Pastor @PeterC

I appreciate your thoughts, and I understand your POV. I admit, your POV is more popular than the one I am suggesting, so I accept that most disciples (and some reference works) see it the way you do. I appreciate your service in pointing those details out to me. Still, I see things a bit differently at the trunk, which necessarily brings me to slightly different conclusions at the branches. Still, we are viewing the same tree through the lens of the same Spirit, and for that I am grateful. I’ll try to only make a few comments to help you understand how I arrived at my POV.

First, you say:

Deborah was a prophetess, which places her in the position of speaking God’s word to the people. Remember, any official civil jurisdiction was seated with the king, Jabin and his court in Hazor.

“So the LORD sold them (wicked wayward Israel) into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth Hagoyim.” (Judges 4:2)

How do you think this royal administration would view any prophet who supposedly spoke for a King of Kings? The Israelites had been “harshly oppressed” for twenty years by the Canaanite king Jabin, and his ruthless army. The prophetess Deborah could be found, speaking for God, tucked out-of-sight, under a conspicuous palm tree, somewhere in the mountains of Ephraim (quite a distance to the south of Hazor). The fact that she was a woman probably helped to keep her under-the-radar. Deborah was not the only prophet in Israel, and not the only woman to hold that distinction. She was not a queen, she was not a commander, she was not an official. She was a simple wise woman, a poet, a dedicated disciple to The One True God, through whom God chose to speak to his unruly children during a protracted time of severe oppression. And some of the people would listen to her. This, to me, is the picture the Bible paints of Deborah, a picture that sits in much contrast to one where an enrobed Deborah sits “holding court”, “issuing binding judicial decisions” or “wielding official authority”. She did not hold the “highest judicial seat in the nation”. There was no “nation”, only an oppressive “kingdom”, and that king held the only recognized judicial seat in his jurisdiction. God” sold them” into this oppressive situation because of their sinfulness.

The fact that a lowly woman was obviously chosen by God, could hear from God, speak for God, and people recognized it was probably God’s way of adding shame to the Israelite men who were supposed to be leaders, but were acting foolish.

Second, you use the words “authority” and “leadership” synonymously. As in:

I do not use these English terms synonymously, and neither does our Bible (IMHO). “Leading” is conducting one’s life in such a way as it is worthy to be followed. (I know the world does not use this term this way). “Authority” is rooted in the word “author” and expresses self-originated dominance, rulership, and mastery. “Authority” carries with it the idea “It’s my way or the highway”. Every Christian is called to be a leader, men and women alike, and our lives should demonstrate conduct that Christians and non-Christians should follow. The Prophetess Deborah was a leader even though she held no authority. Paul instructs Timothy to be a leader, and to foster leadership among he men and women of the Ephesian church.

You misrepresent me then, when you misquoted me:

I actually said:

To me, these are VERY different statements. God did not command Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, or Junia to aspire to, or accept the role of authority. This would anti-testify to the proper role of The Bride of Christ to our Master-savior. This retort applies to everywhere you use the word “leadership” while implying “authority” in your post. I hope you can see the difference I am trying to make.

One last reminder. Jesus said:

"All authority (Gk:exousía) has been given to Me in heaven and on earth”. (Matthew 28:18)

With this, I know you fully agree, and that’s what matters.

Be blessed, and be a blessing, as a wise man says.
KP

1 Like
15

Scripture is actually clear (and OT examples do not belong in a discussion on the church); the Holy Spirit says through Paul:

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Furthermore, in his list of characteristics in both Tinothy and Titus, he specifically uses the male pronoun - unless you are advocating for lesbians where one calls herself the “husband,” which is also untenable in the NT Scriptures.

And Paul gives the reason: man was made first and was placed by God over woman because there must be structure, and the woman (because of her genetic makeup) is more prone than men are to falling to deception. Men can be deceived also, but women have a proclivity to it, where men are deceived out of…failing character…

I Tim. 2:12 puts a dead stop to a woman being the pastor over a church. None of the classic passages offered up by denominations in claiming that women can pastor a church holds up under scrutiny…prophesying is NOT having authority over anyone; Deborah, Huldah, nor Mirian are valid examples for the church, and not even for Israel, since God laments the fact that “women rule over them” (Isa. 3:12); Anna was a prophetess, but again, the prophet has no authority over anyone, the only authority they have is God speaking through them, the same with Philip’s daughters. Mary’s “commission” did NOT give her any authority over a man; Phoebe was a deaconess - a servant, not a pastor, Junia was a man, not a woman, and even if he was a woman the text says that he was well known among the apostles, not your claim that he (or she) was an apostle.

Those who labored with Paul in the gospel - there is no wording there giving the idea that they exercised any kind of authority over men (or any authority period), the laboring was most likely carrying water from the well, fixing meals, etc. But Paul cannot say women cannot exercise authority over men and then turn around and allow them to, that would be unbiblical…you are reading into the text what is not there.

The catch-all…Gal. 3:28 does NOT teach that there are no physical gender in the kingdom of God, if that is what Paul says, then he directly contradicts numerous statements that he makes throughout his letters. This verse has been used by miscreants for years to directly contradict numerous other passages, and because it does contradict Scripture, it is a false interpretation.

A woman can be a prophet, or evangelist, because neither of them have any kind of authority, the authority they “have” comes from the very words of God given to them to speak, but to use one passage and say that it cancels out another passage, is one of the most heinous illegitimate twistings of Scripture there is.

Blessings.

16

Brother @KPuff

Thank you for the thoughtful, gracious tone and the care with which you laid out your perspective. I truly appreciate the spirit in which we can examine Scripture together, even when looking at the same tree from different angles!

I want to offer a few thoughts on how I view the historical context of Judges and biblical authority. While it’s true that Jabin of Hazor was oppressing Israel, he was an external pagan occupier, not Israel’s covenant governor. Israel did not view pagan oppressors as their legitimate judicial authority. In the book of Judges, God raised Shophetim (Judges) to administer His law and deliver His people.

When Scripture records in Judges 4:4–5 that Deborah was judging (shaphat) Israel and that the Israelites went up to her for binding legal decisions, she was fulfilling the exact legal and judicial function that Gideon, Samuel, and other male judges fulfilled. Sitting under the Palm of Deborah was not hiding; it was her established seat of judgment in Ephraim. To say she had no official authority because Jabin held military power would mean no Judge in Israel had authority while under foreign oppression. God placed her in the highest civil and judicial role Israel had at the time.

I think a key difference in our conclusions comes down to how we define “authority.” If authority means self-originated dominance (“my way or the highway”), then I completely agree with you. No Christian, man or woman, should ever seek or exercise that kind of authority! Christ roundly condemned that style of autocratic leadership in Matthew 20:25–26.

However, biblical authority (exousia) is never self-originated; it is always delegated by God. When a minister, elder, or judge executes their duty according to God’s Word, they aren’t exercising “their own” authority. They are exercising God’s delegated authority for the order and edification of the body.

When women like Deborah judged, Huldah validated the authentic Scriptures for the King and High Priest 2 Kings 22, Phoebe served as a diakonos and prostatis (patron/leader) in Cenchreae Romans 16:1–2, or Junia labored among the apostles Romans 16:7, they were not seizing self-originated dominance. They were operating faithfully in positions of delegated responsibility and spiritual oversight given to them by God.

Because biblical authority is delegated stewardship rather than selfish dominance, a woman operating in God-given leadership or office isn’t “desiring authority” in a fleshly sense, nor is she misrepresenting the Bride. She is simply serving the Master with the gifts and calling He entrusted to her.

I deeply respect your desire to honor Christ’s ultimate authority Matthew 28:18. On that foundation, we stand on 100% solid ground together. One could also argue that this would not apply to Women Pastors. Women led in significant civic, prophetic, or functional roles (like Deborah as a Judge, Phoebe as a deacon/patron, or Huldah as a prophetess), while maintaining that the specific, local church office of Pastor/Elder/Overseer (poimen / presbyteros / episkopos) is reserved for qualified men.

When Paul outlines the explicit qualifications for the office of overseer/elder (which in the New Testament is synonymous with pastor), he specifies that the candidate must be “the husband of one wife” (mias gynaikos anēr in Greek, literally a “one-woman man”).

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter

17

Bro @PeterC

I sure don’t want to belabor insignificant details about Deborah; I don’t want to strain at a gnat and overlook a camel swimming in my tea. I concede Deborah was a respected prophetess, one to whom Israel would go to have disputes decided. She no doubt accepted the position as one that came from God, and one in which she accurately, and dutifully spoke for God. In my vocabulary, God was the Authority, and Deborah was His agent. I know others see it differently.

I started out commenting on some other trivial matters concerning 1200BC Israeli civilization, but thought better of it. I will say I concede that a God-ordained “Judge” was "supposed to be faithful to God’s directives, they were recognized as the spokesperson for the justice of God, and often rendered Godly decisions on civil and ecclesiastical matters (Deut. 1:16-18) Deborah, no doubt, faithfully followed this same pattern. Most of the following “judges” did not.

I also concede that:

I did not intend to imply that any of these mentioned women were being disobedient, or unfaithful to their calling.

I understand your point when you say:

I agree. I concede the Greek word “exousia” is sometimes translated “authority”, but more often translated “power”, (especially in the KJV), and really carries the intended meaning of “ability”, “capacity”, “right”, or “that which is unhindered”. This is not our word in the 1 Timothy 2:12 passage the OP presented. Neither is it the word used by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:2, which is G:huperoché (fem. of huperecho: to hold or extend above) Our word is G:authentéō, from which you can see shares the obvious root “auth” with our English word “authority”. It does carry the intended meaning of self-appointed rule, or power that comes from one’s self, (my way or the highway). You know the definition of this word that Paul chose to say to Timothy; it is this specific “brand of authority”, if you will, that Paul “does not permit a woman to have over a male”. He does not prohibit “leadership”, “ministry”, “laboring”, service, or holding offices that entail these abilities. It is this Greek word from which we derive our English word “authority”, and the precise definition of authority to which I subscribe. If this is the “brand of authority” Paul specifically prohibits, we must ask ourselves, why? My answer is that it misrepresents the commissioned testimony, demonstrated by The Church to the world, of the eternal relationship between Christ and His church, Christ the eternal authority, the bride the eternal servant. We would have it no other way.

Here, and other scriptures (some you have pointed out, there are many others) clearly teach that If any Christian woman submits herself to Jesus the Christ, faithfully fulfills her ordained ministry, and walks by faith in the role God has given her, she will find herself postured not as a superior, but as a submissive. We are all to submit ourselves to each other, Christ Himself came not to be served, but to serve. In my opinion, If a Christian woman has a “desire to be in charge, like a man” (Genesis 3:16), to rule over men, to impose her will on men, she is missing her ordained responsibility to testify to the truth of Jesus, who is our only supreme authority.

That’s where I stand (today anyway)
Thanx for the mind-massage
I appreciae you
KP

18

Correct here.

1Ti 2:12 To-woman01 Yet02 To-be-teaching03 Not04 I-am-permitting05 nor-yet06 To-be-domineering07 Of-man08 N1 But09 To-be10 In11 Quietness12

Nor to have dominion over a man (oude authentein andros). The word authenteō is now cleared up by Kretschmer (Glotta, 1912, pp. 289ff.) and by Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary. See also Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus and Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 88f. Autodikeō was the literary word for playing the master while authenteō was the vernacular term. It comes from auṫhentes, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive authentēs, master, verb authenteō, to domineer, adjective authentikos, authoritative, “authentic”). Modern Greek has aphentes = Effendi = “Mark.”
RWP.

1Ti 2:12 But δὲ vvv οὐκ I do not permit ἐπιτρέπω, a woman γυναικὶ to teach, διδάσκειν nor οὐδὲ to use authority over αὐθεντεῖν a man, ἀνδρός, but ἀλλ’ to be εἶναι in ἐν quietness. ἡσυχίᾳ.

1Ti 2:12 And a wife [to teach not I commit to their care], nor to domineer a husband, but to be at rest.

I believe this is the correct word.

J.

19

I am so Sorry @KPuff I am almost out of time. Took way too much time on nonsense on another thread. I will respond tomorrow, my Brother.

Be blessed, be a blessing.
Peter

20

I appreciate the admission that there is no biblical sin in a women leading God’s people. Since you’ve conceeded that point, your attempt to rebrand submission as a superior role is a thin vale for subjugation.