The Bible and Gender Equality

By Izuchukwu Riches Ubani

“Numberless words need not be put in paper to justify what speaks for itself and shines in its clearness. Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form” (Early Writings, p. 96).

“No error is truth, or can be made truth by repetition, or by faith in it. Sincerity will never save a soul from the consequences of believing an error. Without sincerity there is no religion, but sincerity in a false religion will never save a man. I may be perfectly sincere in following a wrong road, but that will not make it the right road, or bring me to the place I wished to reach” (Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 56).

Gender Issues in the Biblical Creation Story

Genesis 1 portrays man and woman in relation to God. Here both are equal, for both were created in the image of God, and both are subordinate to God. Genesis 2 portrays man and woman in relation to one another and reveals a functional subordination of women to men. Thus, Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory but complementary.

The principles of equality of being and subordination in function not only resolve the apparent tension between Genesis 1 and 2 but also explain why women are presented in the Bible as equal to men in personhood and yet subordinate to men in certain roles.

Are “equality in being” and “subordination in function” contradictory terms? Not necessarily. Such a “contradiction” existed in our Savior Himself. On the one hand, Jesus could say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), while on the other hand, He could say, “I can do nothing on My Own Authority … I seek not My Own will but the will of Him Who Sent Me” (John 5:30), and “the Father is greater than I”. (John 14:28).

The subordination of woman to man in the Bible is subordination not of inferiority but of unity. An equal accepts a subordinate role for the purpose of greater unity. In this relationship, the head governs out of genuine love and respect, and the subordinate responds out of a desire to serve common goals.

It is similar to the kind of subordination that exists in the Godhead between the Father and the Son. In fact, Paul appeals to this heavenly example to explain the way a husband is the head of his wife, namely, as God is the head of Christ. “The head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God” (1Cor. 11:3). This is the unique kind of Christian subordination that makes one person out of two equal persons.

To act as equal and joint partners does not mean to act identically. Individuals in a relationship can be equal and yet have different roles. They can act jointly and yet not act identically; they may share duties but not bear the same responsibilities.

What evidence is there for a “structure” in the relationship of the man and woman before the Fall? There are some indications of God’s design for man’s leadership role in their relationship.

God expressed His intended arrangement for the family relationship by creating Adam first, then Eve. That is, men were created before women, and for a reason. Genesis 2 tells us that God made the woman of the man to be a helper fit for the man, and that God brought her to the man. This implies no inferiority, but it does establish the structure of their relationship.

For example, Paul wrote, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve”. (I Tim. 2:12, 13). Paul again emphasized the order of creation in his teachings about head coverings. He wrote: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1Cor. 11:8).

God gave Adam directions for the first pair regarding the custody of the garden and the dangers of the forbidden tree, before the creation of the woman (Gen. 2:15–17). This charge to Adam called him to spiritual leadership. Evidently, he was responsible for conveying to Eve the knowledge of God’s will in this matter. Adam names the woman (Gen. 2:23), an act indicating authority over her. Just as surely, Adam’s naming of “all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field” (Gen. 2:20) was an indication of dominion over other creatures of God. God instructed that in marriage, it is the man who must act, leaving dependence on father and mother to be united with his wife (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4,5), and that in the marriage relationship, the woman’s role is to complement the man in his duties (Gen. 2:18, 23, 24). In this instruction, God charged the man with the responsibility of lovingly providing for and protecting the woman (cf. Eph. 5:25, 28–31; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Tim. 3:4; Titus 1:6).

What evidence is there for a “structure” in the relationship between man and woman after the Fall? The evidence here is overwhelming. Although Eve first disobeyed, it was only after Adam had joined in the rebellion that the eyes of both of them were opened (Gen. 3:4–7). More significantly, after the Fall, God first addressed Adam, holding him accountable for eating the forbidden fruit: “Where art thou? … Hast thou eaten of the tree…?”(Gen. 3:9–12; cf. 3:17: “Because thou hast eaten of the tree…”).

It appears inexplicable for God, Who in His Omniscience already knew what had happened to act in this way if Adam had not been given headship in the Eden relationship. Despite the fact that the woman initiated the rebellion, it is Adam, not Eve, nor even both of them, who is blamed for our Fall (Rom 5:12–21; 1Cor. 15:21–22), which suggests that as the spiritual head in the partnership of their equal relationship, Adam was the representative head of the family.

If Biblical headship did not exist at Creation, it would be difficult to explain why Adam (not Eve) is repeatedly held responsible for the entrance of sin and death into the world, even though it was Eve who sinned first (Rom 5:12–21; 1Cor. 15:21–22; Gen 3:1–7). As part of the curse (the result/effect of rebellion on their pre-Fall functions) on Eve, God declared; “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16).

In the Bible, neither blessings nor curses are arbitrary, but are directly determined by one’s relationship to God’s law. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandment of the Lord your God, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God” (Deut 11:26–28). The same commands bring a blessing if followed or a curse if violated. The curse is the law’s application to a rebellious heart. Christ takes away the rebellion from the heart so that we may realize the blessing of obedience.

The “curse” is the law’s application to a rebellious heart! The “curse” did not establish a “new” order of relationship” between man and woman, but made provision for the maintenance of the “original” order of relationship in the new phase of existence with the consciousness of and the tendency to sin.

What we often call the curse in Genesis 3:16, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,”  is part of a broader description of the results of their rebellion on the man and woman’s pre-Fall functions. For example, God had commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply.” Now after sin, Eve’s part in that function would be by pain and labour (Gen. 3:16). Likewise, Adam had been placed in the garden “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But now, after sin, his efforts would be laborious, the ground would bear thistles, and he would survive by “the sweat of (his) face” (Gen. 3:17–19). The man and woman are not given new functions here, but sin’s effect on their established functions is spelled out. In this setting, the “rule over” statement appears.

What had been a natural and happy leadership before the Fall would now have to be asserted in conflict as a result of the spirit of rebellion and desire for supremacy that sin has brought into the human heart. Prior to the fall, Eve’s submission was freely and spontaneously expressed. But after the Fall, the Lord had to make explicit the “law” she had perhaps been obeying unconsciously.

Because Eve chose to abandon her God-given, God-assigned role, God’s curse enjoined her to subject herself to her husband. Indeed, this perceived curse is one of the greatest blessings God has given to man; without this curse, the family set-up could easily have been done away with a long time ago. Today, naturally, every woman has an inexplicable longing to one day get married and be under the care, protection, and “rulership” of the man. Truly, a woman’s desire “shall be for” her husband, and that is not surprising at all: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8–9).

How does Ellen G. White summarize the Creation story as regards gender role differentiation between man and woman?

“The sin of this age is disregard of God’s express commands. The power of influence in a wrong direction is very great. Eve had all that her wants required. There was nothing lacking to make her happy …. She was perfectly happy in her Eden home by her husband’s side; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered that there was a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. But in attempting to climb higher than her original position, she fell far below it. This will most assuredly be the result with the Eves of the present generation if they neglect to cheerfully take up their daily life duties in accordance with God’s plan. …. A neglect on the part of woman to follow God’s plan in her creation, an effort to reach for important positions which He has not qualified her to fill, leaves vacant the position that she could fill to acceptance. In getting out of her sphere, she loses true womanly dignity and nobility. When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal. The holy pair were to have no interest independent of each other; and yet each had an individuality in thinking and acting. But after Eve’s sin, as she was first in the transgression, the Lord told her that Adam should rule over her. She was to be in subjection to her husband, and this was a part of the curse. In many cases the curse has made the lot of woman very grievous and her life a burden. The superiority which God has given man he has abused in many respects by exercising arbitrary power. Infinite wisdom devised the plan of redemption, which places the race on a second probation by giving them another trial.” (Testimonies, Vol. 3, pp. 483, 484).

“Heaven’s ideal of this sacred (marriage) relationship is one in which the man is the head of the home. This kind of relationship is what God designed it should be” (Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, pp. 64, 65).

“The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the Head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 307).

“We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband … We must yield to the head” (Letter 5, 1861).

Indeed, when a woman honors this requirement of God, she helps her husband to develop into the responsible, loving man that God calls him to be. But along with the ongoing subjection, there remains also something of the original equality.

“Woman should (today, now) fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal.” (Adventist Home, p. 231).

The Genesis account shows that at Creation, God called upon the man to be the representative head and leader of the family (both home and church).

In the Garden of Eden, man and woman were assigned different duties to perform, but they also enjoyed perfect harmony. The man led kindly, and the woman cooperated joyfully. Sin, however, made selfishness grow in human hearts, just as it made weeds grow in the ground. Eve’s independence from her husband in the first sin would show up repeatedly as women sought to circumvent men’s leadership.

Adam’s original disregard for God’s law would show up repeatedly as men attempted to dominate women with unloving authoritarianism. Role distinctions would be marred by sin, and the gospel, when it came, would not obliterate these distinctions. Instead, the gospel would reinfuse the distinctive roles of “equal” men and women with the love and joyfulness that God had given them in Eden.

Gender Issues in Spiritual Leadership

Church leaders are not CEOs of some business corporations. They are not politicians, comedians, clowns, military dictators, or some new “kids in the church block” seeking to display their wonderful talents or giftedness. This is because church leadership is spiritual leadership. It is pastoral leadership.

The apostle Peter captures the spiritual work of the church leaders with the phrase “shepherding (pastoring) the flock of God.” He writes:

“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples of the flock” (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

All three root words that are used interchangeably in the New Testament for the work of church leaders are found in the above passage: elders (“presbyteros”), overseers (“episkopos”), and pastors/shepherds (“poimanos”). Though the emphasis of each word is different, the apostle Peter sees the work of the church or elders as being essentially pastoral or shepherding God’s flock.

A church leader is to be like the good shepherd described in Psalm 23 and John 10. He wisely leads his flock and provides for all their needs: food and water (when the flock is hungry and thirsty), protection from predators and other harm (when they are in danger), comfort and healing (when they are hurt or wounded), and nurture and discipline (so they will grow healthily and reproduce).

In the same way, elders or pastors are to feed God’s flock (through the sound teaching and preaching of God’s Word). They must protect the flock from predators who seek their harm (i.e. they must protect the church from false teachers and false teachings). Church leaders must comfort those who are hurting and gently use their staff to bring into the fold the sheep that have strayed (church discipline). They must ensure the growth and health of God’s flock (through evangelism and mission). Finally, they must be positive role models or examples of the flock (through a life of humility, sacrifice, and selflessness).

The pastoral leadership to which church leaders have been called is best exemplified in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the church’s true Head. The apostle Peter rightly describes Him as the Shepherd (“poimanos”) and Bishop (“episkopos”) of our souls (1 Peter 2:25).

This pertains to God’s call upon specific individuals to exercise a particular leadership function in the church, namely the role of elders or pastors.

Sometimes, they are referred to as “presbuteroi” (elders or presbyters). This Greek designation is the word used by the Jews for civil magistrates or judges. As understood, in this sense, the elder or pastor can be seen as the church magistrate who has the ability to govern. Another word used for the elder or pastor is “episkopoi” (bishops or overseers). This word was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for a civil or military ruler. Thus, the term also suggests a governing authority. Other designations for the elder or pastor are “hegoumenoi” (rulers; see Heb. 13:7, 17, 24), and “poimenes” or shepherds (see Eph. 4:11), terms that suggest leadership or oversight functions.

The Concept of Biblical Headship

The theological term “headship” simply means that in the loving relationship of male-female equality and complementarity, God calls upon men to be the leaders and representative heads of their families, and He holds them accountable if they refuse to shoulder spiritual leadership responsibilities.

The Bible teaches that within the partnership of male and female equality, male headship charges the man to exercise Christlike spiritual leadership in both the home and the church families, while female submission and cooperation calls upon the women to lovingly support or assist the man in his leadership function.

The Bible describes the nature of male headship not as domination, or the wielding of “power” but rather as leadership in: self-giving love (Eph 5:25), sacrificial service (1 Peter 3:7; cf. Mark 10:42–44), sound management or governorship (1 Tim. 3:4, 5), ensuring the well-being of and providing for the home (1 Tim. 5:8), and discipline and instruction (Deut 6:7; Eph 6:4), “that is, leadership as a ‘law maker and priest’” (The Adventist Home, p. 212).

This kind of male headship, which is best exemplified by Christ (Eph. 5), can only be demonstrated by those who are “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11).

“The supporting role of the female does not mean that the woman must yield her individuality or conscience to the man, or that she is to maintain a blind devotion to him. The woman is to understand that “there is One who stands higher than the husband to the wife; it is her Redeemer, and her submission to her husband is to be rendered as God directed-as it is fit in the Lord” (The Adventist Home, p. 116).

The woman practices true biblical submission by showing a loving respect (Eph. 5:33; cf. Titus 2:4) and by lovingly accepting her divinely ordained role as helper corresponding to the husband (Gen. 2:18; Eph 5:21–33; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1–7). This role is not servile but is one requiring intelligent, willing cooperation toward the objective of a strong family—home or church—that glorifies God. In this submission, Jesus provides a model for women, just as He does for men (Phil 2:5–11; Eph. 5:23–25; 1 Cor. 11:3). Only the converted, that is, those who are “in the Lord” can truly reflect this spirit of submission (1 Cor. 11:11).

Spiritual Leadership (Male Headship) in the Home

The Bible teaches that in the “home church,” both fathers and mothers are to exercise leadership in nurturing, training, disciplining, and teaching their children (Exo 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut 6:6–9; 21:18–21; 27:16; Prov. 1:8; 6:20; Eph 6:1-4; Col. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:5; cf. Luke 2:51).

But while “every family is a church, over which the parents preside … the father and mother as priest and teacher (respectively) of the family” (Child Guidance, p. 549), it is the man who, assisted by the woman, assumes the ultimate leadership role in the household family. In other words, within the general leadership of both parents, it is the man who exercises the specific or particular leadership of a spiritual leader in the home.

We see this illustrated in Ephesians 6:1-4, where after discussing the shared responsibility of parents in training their children, Paul shifts the focus to fathers and charges them regarding the training of their children: “Children, obey your parents … And ye fathers … bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”. (Note the shift from parents to fathers also in Colossian 3:20, 21).

Male Headship of the Firstborn

In the Old Testament, headship was first assigned to firstborn males in the home. The home was the earliest church, and spiritual leadership for the home church was assigned to firstborn males.

During patriarchal times, the male head of the household or tribe functioned as the priest, representing his household to God (Genesis 8:20; 22:13; Job 1:5).

Male Headship and Priesthood in the Old Testament

As God constituted the nation of Israel as His “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), this leadership role was given to males of the tribe of Levi who alone could serve as priests. The role of the priests was seen in the Bible as representing the head (firstborn son) of the household (Num 3:6–13).

“The Levites shall be Mine, for all the firstborn are Mine” (Num 3:12, 13).

A woman could minister as a prophet, communicating God’s will, but a male was appointed to the priestly role because the male was viewed by Bible writers as the “firstborn” of the human family (Gen 2:7, 21-23) to whom God assigned the headship role in the home and in the church.

It was God’s plan, of course, that every individual should be a “priest” in Old Testament times (Exo. 19:6), as in our own times (1 Pet 2:9; Rev. 1:6), but this was as individuals in our individual relationship to God, not as ordained priests representing the community.

Qualification of Elders/Pastors

The same qualifications are required for both offices of the elder/presbyter and the overseer/bishop (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9); both offices are used interchangeably in the New Testament (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Pet 5:1-3), and both perform the same work of shepherding the flock (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; 1 Thess 5:12). The Bible offers spiritual criteria (not “giftedness” or “diversity”) as prerequisites for those serving in the office of elder or pastor.

The apostle Paul writes: “Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer (“episkopos”), he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not give to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the Devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the Devil’s trap (1 Tim. 3:1-7, cf. Titus 1:5-9).

Notice that besides the general characteristics that are expected of all Christians (e.g., being above reproach, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, etc.), some characteristics specifically deal with the leader’s standing within the church (e.g., being able to teach, not a recent convert, and having a good reputation with outsiders). Finally, certain characteristics pertain to the leader’s family life (e.g., he is the husband of one wife, manages his own family well, and his children obey him with proper respect).

We can make three important observations from the above qualities of an elder. First, God places a high priority on godly character for church leaders, “not a so-called ‘giftedness’ in leadership”. We all know that sometimes those with the most wonderful talents and gifts are not godly, and hence do not qualify to be spiritual leaders of the church.

Secondly, the Bible also makes spiritual maturity a necessary requirement for church leadership. Since some of the characteristics emphasize ability to teach, the importance of not being a novice (new convert), and a demonstration of an impeccable reputation to outsiders, there seem to be “spiritual age” limitations on those who can serve as elders or pastors. If this is indeed the case, then the Bible seems to raise some serious questions about the practice in some quarters of appointing youth as “junior elders.” We must find a biblically better way to mentor the youth to be spiritual leaders.

Thirdly, the requirement that the elders should evidence certain proven abilities in the home suggests that there is a link between spiritual leadership in the home and spiritual leadership in the church. This fact seems to make gender an issue in the spiritual leadership of the church.

Is Eldership Gender-Inclusive?

In discussing the qualities of elders and pastors, the New Testament writers made clear that such an office holder should be a man, not a woman. If they had believed that any person could qualify, irrespective of gender, they would have used the generic term “anthropos,”  a word that refers to human beings, male or female, without regard to gender. Instead, they employed the specific term “ander/andros,” a word that means a male person as distinct from a woman (Acts 8:12; 11 Tim. 2:12), a person capable of being called a husband (see Matt. 1:16; John 4:16; Rom. 7:2; Titus 1:6).

The apostle Paul instructed that an elder must fulfill certain qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-6; Titus 1:5-9). Among these, an elder/bishop must be…the husband (“aner/andros”) of one wife (1Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). This expression literally translates as a “man of one woman” or “one woman-man,” meaning “a male of one woman.” In other words, the elder or pastor should be a man, not a woman.

An additional point underscores this gender restriction in the qualities of an elder; namely, the elder should be able to exercise spiritual leadership in his home. He is one who must manage his own family well (1Tim 3:4,5, Titus 1:6). Since the Bible entrusts to men the primary function of spiritual leadership in the home, this requirement calls into question the notion of “women elders” or “women pastors.”

The very structure of the passage in 1 Timothy supports this conclusion. The qualifications for the office of elder (1Tim 3:1–7) include being “an apt teacher’. They follow immediately after the prohibition of women as teacher-elders (1 Tim. 2:1–15). This placement of the qualifications for eldership (including fitness for teaching) immediately after the prohibition respecting women reveals explicitly that women should not be elders. Making them elders would cast them in a type of teaching role that Scripture specifically prohibits for them.

Contrary to what many claim, the Biblical exclusion of women from elder-pastor roles was a consequence of a prevailing patriarchal, “male-chauvinist” culture and mentality. The culture of the time permitted women to serve as priests; many religions included women in their priesthood. By contrast, the inspired writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament maintained the role distinctions assigned by God to men and women from the beginning.

Gender Issues and the Ministry of Jesus

Jesus treated women in a revolutionary way—affirming their personhood, appreciating their intellectual and spiritual capacities, accepting some of them into His inner circle of traveling companions, and honoring them with the first announcement of His resurrection.

Jesus did indeed treat women as persons of equal value to men. He admitted them into His fellowship. He took time to teach them the truths of the Kingdom of God. A woman was first with the story of the resurrection, and at least one woman (Mary, the mother of Jesus) received the Holy Spirit with others at Pentecost. Yet the fact remains that Christ called no woman to be part of the twelve apostles. Why would Jesus not have commissioned women to preach or teach publicly (as apostles) if this had been His intention?

Jesus never dealt with the issue of a leadership role for women. But through the Holy Spirit, He clarified that issue in the writings of the apostles. Those messages (of the apostles) are as much the voice of Jesus as if He had spoken them while on Earth. Jesus’ own choice of twelve male apostles was consistent with the Old Testament headship role men were called to fulfill at home and in the community of faith. The same role structure was respected in the life and order of the apostolic church.

Roles of Women in Ministry

The Bible presents women as full participants with men in the religious and social life of the church.

• Miriam (the elder sister of Moses) was a prophetess (Exo. 15:20).
• Deborah was a prophetess and judge in Israel (Judges 4:4–14).
• In the fifth year of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry, Josiah the king and Hilkiah the high priest went to Huldah the prophetess for counsel and spiritual guidance (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chron. 34:22–28).
• Mary and Martha, and a number of other women, including Joanna and Susanna, supported Jesus with their own means (Luke 8:2, 3).
• Tabitha ministered to the needy (Acts 9:36).
• Lydia, Phoebe, Lois, and Eunice distinguished themselves in fulfilling the mission of the church. (Acts 16:14–15; 21:8–9; Rom 6:1-4).
• Priscilla apparently was well educated and an apt instructor in the new faith (Rom. 16:3; Acts 18:26).
• Paul calls Phoebe “a servant of the church” and a “succourer of many, and of myself also” (Rom. 16:1, 2).
• Mary, Tryphena, Tryposa, and Persis all “worked very hard in the Lord” (Rom. 16:6, 12).
• Euodia and Syntyche were women “who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” (Phil. 4:3, RSV).
• Junia, who suffered imprisonment with Paul, received commendation as someone “of note among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7).
• Widows may also have been an organized body for service in the New Testament church. (Acts 9:39).
• Women in the study and teaching of the Law (Neh 8:2; Prov. 1:8; Deut 13:6–11).
• Women offered prayers and vows to God (1 Samuel 1:10; Num 30:9; Gen. 25:22; 30:6, 22; 2 Kings 4:9–10, 20–37).
• Women prayed aloud and prophesied (spoke words of exhortation and comfort) in the church (1 Cor. 11:5).
• Women served as musicians and attendants at the (entrance of) tabernacle and temple. (1Sam 2:22; 1Chron. 25:5,6; Ps. 68:24,25; Ezra 2:65).
• Women never serve as priests (in the Old Testament Church) (Exo. 28:1; Num 3:1–13).

• Women were never in positions of leadership or teaching as elders or pastors in the New Testament Church. (1 Tim. 2:11–14; 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Cor. 14:33–36).

Pauline Passages About the Role of Women

Why does Paul say, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” in the church (1Tim 2:12)? Is it because women in his day were uneducated? That is an assumption without support in the Bible. If lack of education had been the basis of Paul’s prohibition, he would have prohibited both men and women from teaching in the church if they were uneducated. But women as well as men could have been trained to become good teachers. Deaconesses and other female workers in apostolic teams must have received some training.

In fact, the situation in Ephesus may have been quite different from what is often supposed. Some of the women may have been more educated than many men, and so they may have felt justified acting as teacher-leaders of the congregation. Priscilla was well enough educated in the Christian faith to instruct an intellectual like Apollos when he went to Ephesus (Acts. 18:26).

And Paul apparently approved the teaching ministry of Priscilla and Aquila. Paul also required women to do a certain kind of teaching: “the older women … to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children” (Titus 2:3-5, RSV). Paul also commended the teaching that Eunice and Lois provided for Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14–15).

Significantly, prior to writing this epistle, Paul had already stayed at the home of Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:2, 11). They later accompanied Paul to Ephesus (Acts 18:18–21). When Paul stayed in Ephesus for another three years “teaching the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, 31; cf. 1 Cor. 16:19), likely Priscilla was among those who received instruction from him.

Moreover, Paul’s epistle to Timothy (the very epistle which prohibits women to “teach or to have authority over men” and which restricts the pastoral role of overseer to men) was addressed to the church at Ephesus (1Tim. 1:3), the home church of Priscilla and Aquila.

All of this suggests that the reason for Paul’s instruction was not that women were uneducated. The very fact that he prohibited women from a certain kind of teaching implies that some women already possessed the ability to teach.

Do 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 really forbid all kinds of teaching and speaking by women in the church?  If we should take Paul’s statements literally: “I permit no woman to teach … she is to keep silent”, and “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak … as also saith the law”, won’t the church be crippled, since it uses the talents of women so heavily in Sabbath School and in other teaching and speaking ministries?

In the Bible, it is clear that in Paul’s ministry, women were not expected to be totally silent. They prayed, prophesied, preached, evangelized, and exercised an appropriate teaching ministry in the church (1 Cor. 11:5; Acts 18:26; Phil 4:3; Rom 16:12; Titus 2:3, 4) that Paul encouraged. These texts should alert the Bible student that the prohibition of women “to teach or to have authority over men” does not forbid women from every form of teaching.

In the same letter to the Corinthians in which Paul told women to keep silence in the church, he indicated that women may pray and prophesy, provided they are dressed appropriately (1Cor 11:12–16). And he said that the one who prophesies speaks “edification, and exhortation and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:3). Also, just like the command in the same chapter that those who speak in tongues should “keep silence in the church” if no interpreter was present (1Cor. 14:28), the instruction that women should “keep silence in the churches” suggests that Paul wants women to exercise their gift to speak within certain appropriate guidelines.

The nature of the teaching forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2:12 is the authoritative teaching restricted to the pastor, the elder-overseer of the congregation. This conclusion is supported both by the meaning of the parallelism (“or to have authority over men,”  v. 12) and by the use of the verb “to teach” and of the noun “teaching” in Paul’s writings, especially in his letters to Timothy.

Unlike other terms used in the New Testament to communicate the idea of teaching, the Greek word “didasko” used in this passage carries the force of authoritative teaching entrusted to a person, particularly someone in a leadership role in the church. Paul’s letters to Timothy present the teaching ministry as a governing function performed by Paul himself, by Timothy, or by other appointed elder-overseers of the congregation (1 Tim. 2:7; 3:2; 5:17; 2 Tim. 1:11; 2:2). Paul charges Timothy to “command and teach” (1Tim. 4:11), “take heed to yourself and to your teaching” (1 Tim. 4:16), “teach and urge these duties” (1 Tim. 6:2), “preach the word… in teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). The only place in the New Testament where “didasko” is an action of a woman is in Revelation 2:20, where the church at Thyatira is reprimanded because “you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who … is teaching”.

Paul uses the Greek word “kalodidaskalos,”  “teacher of good things,”  to refer to what the aged women were to be in the instructions they gave to younger women (Titus 2:3–4). The reason why women were forbidden to “teach or to have authority over men” was not inadequate education or a lack of ability to teach. Paul instead pointed to the creation order, stating that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13). Adam carried the special rights and responsibility of leadership, which belonged to the “firstborn” in a family (cf. Col. 1:15–18).

In the wider context of Paul’s pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus and in light of the restrictive use of the words “to teach” and “teaching” in these letters, as well as the immediate context that links this form of teaching with exercising “authority over men,”  it is reasonable to conclude that Paul is here prohibiting women from the kind of authoritative teaching done in the capacity of a leader of the church as elder-overseers.

Since the Bible indicates that women in ministry may engage in some forms of teaching, including other women (Titus 2:3-5) and even men (Acts 18:26; cf. Col 3:16), the real issue is not whether women may speak or teach (e.g., preaching, public evangelism, teaching Sabbath school, etc.). The issue is, may women legitimately carry out the kind of teaching in the church that places them in a position of authority over men, as is the case with the authoritative teaching entrusted to the elder or pastor (1Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9–10)? This issue is not whether qualified, capable women can teach or be leaders, but whether women in the church are willing to exercise their teaching and leadership gifts within the biblical structure, under the headship of men called upon to exercise the official teaching authority of elder or pastor.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to whether Christians will accept Paul’s instruction and its theological foundation (based on the creation order) as worthy of trust.

If Galatians 3:28 does not abolish all role distinctions among Christians, then what does the passage say?  The text asserts the basic truth that in Christ, every person, Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, enjoys the status of being a son or daughter of God. This truth is made clear in the following verse, which says, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). This means that to be “one in Christ” is to share equally in the inheritance of eternal life.

The real issue in Galatians 3:28 is religious. The great concern of Jews and Christians in the first century was religious status, that is, the status of men and women before God. By contrast, the primary concern of many people today, including many Christians, is social status, often focusing on the social equality of men and women. The prevailing perception among such people today is that we can only bring about true equality by abolishing all role distinctions between men and women, thus realizing what sociologists call “role interchangeability.” Though popular, this view is a distortion, a perversion, of God’s creation order. In the Bible, equality does not mean role interchangeability. Christianity does not abolish the headship of the husband or the subordination of the wife; rather, it redefines these roles in terms of sacrificial love, servanthood, and mutual respect.

Paul saw no tension between oneness in Christ (Gal. 3:28) and the functional subordination of women in the church (1 Tim 2:12–15, 1 Cor. 11:2–16; 14:33–35). This tension is not in Paul nor in the Bible, but in the minds of modern critics.

Conclusion

What is at stake is the authority of the Bible in defining Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and practices. The New Testament expresses its teaching on the role of women in the church in theological terms, basing it on interpretations of earlier Bible passages. It is presented as part of God’s “law” and as “a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:34, 37).

In our current situation, we must see what it means to follow the eternal principle of harmony with God-ordained authority. What is the leadership structure that God has given to the church in His Word? The apostle Paul outlines that structure in light of the Creation and Fall narratives of Genesis (1 Cor. 11:7–12; 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12-14). He indicates that God has established the leadership of certain qualified men in the church (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9).

If such a Biblical teaching is regarded as limited to the culture of Paul’s time, the same could be said of Biblical teachings regarding creation, Sabbath-keeping, clean and unclean meats, footwashing, tithing, etc. The authority of scripture as a whole would thus be undermined and discredited. The issue is important enough that it shows whether our entire belief, structure, reason for existence, and mission to the world, as the remnant church, are based on the authority of the Bible.

“Role interchangeability,”  which eliminates role distinctions, should concern Seventh-day Adventists because we are committed to belief in the Creation as it is presented in Scripture. Contrary to Christians, who interpret the Creation story as a poetic description of the evolutionary process, Adventists accept as factual the account of the six days of creation. Because we accept the doctrine of Creation, we also accept the order of Creation. But if Adventists accept the humanistic/feminist ideology that the roles of men and women are completely interchangeable, we will undermine our belief in the doctrine of Creation, on which the Sabbath commandment is based.

Also, in terms of day-to-day living, eliminating the clear role distinctions between men and women accelerates the breakdown of the family, leads to confusion of identity among children, and may contribute to acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.

Ellen White warned about the danger of holding onto error after knowing the truth:

“If rational beings really desire the truth, God will give them sufficient light to enable them to decide what is truth. If they have a heart to obey, they will see sufficient evidence to walk in the light. But if they in heart desire to evade the truth, He will not work a miracle to gratiify their unbelief. He will never remove every chance or occasion to doubt. If they honestly, sincerely grasp the light, and walk in it, that light will increase until lingering doubts will be dispelled. But if they choose darkness, their questioning and caviling over the truth will increase, their unbelief will be strengthened, and the light which they would not accept will become to them darkness, and how great will be that darkness. It will be as much greater than before the light came, as the light which was rejected was clearer and more abundant than the light which first shone upon them. Thus it was with the Jewish nation; thus it will be with the Christian world in every generation. The rejectors of light treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath. There are those who walk amid perpetual doubts. They feed on doubts, enjoy doubts, talk doubts, and question everything that it is for their interest to believe. To those who thus trifle with the plain testimonies of God’s Word, and who refuse to believe because it is inconvenient and unpopular to do so, the light will finally become darkness; truth will appear to the darkened understanding as error, and error will be accepted as truth. When thus shrouded in error, they will find it perfectly natural and convenient to believe what is false, and will become strong in their faith” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 5, 1886).

“Genuine faith is founded on the Scriptures; but Satan uses so many devices to wrest the scriptures and bring in error, that great care is needed if one would know what they really do teach. It is one of the great delusions of this time to dwell much upon feeling, and to claim honesty while ignoring the plain utterances of the word of God because that word does not coincide with feeling … Feeling may be chaff, but the word of God is the wheat. And “what”, says the prophet, is the chaff to the wheat?” (Review and Herald, November 25, 1884).

It is a very dangerous and innovative argument to invoke the name of the Holy Spirit to justify some questionable reinterpretations of Scripture. But should people invoke the Holy Spirit to circumvent the Bible’s explicit teaching on male-female roles in both the home and the church or to invent some new theories to justify certain egalitarian ideologies?

In view of the orchestrated attempt to impose women’s ordination on the church of God and in view of the confusing, sometimes plausible-sounding arguments being advanced for women’s ordination, it is important that, having identified the crucial issues that are at stake and having found out what the Bible has to say on women’s ordination and other gender-related issues, it behooves upon God’s church to remain true to the sole authority of the Bible for defining her beliefs and practices.

About: Brother Izuchukwu Riches Ubani writes from Nigeria, and you can contact him through email: izuchukwurichesubani@gmail.com