Does the Bible Permit a Woman to Preach?

Dr. John MacArthur:

C. H. Spurgeon:

I share the apostle Paul’s feelings when he bade women be silent in the assembly. Yet there is work for holy women, and we read of Peter’s wife’s mother that she arose and ministered to Christ. She did what she could and what she should. She arose and ministered to Him.Blessed are they who do what they should do. It is better to be a good housewife, or nurse, or domestic servant, than to be a powerless preacher or a graceless talker. She did not arise and prepare a lecture, nor preach a sermon, but she arose and prepared a supper, and that was what she was fitted to do. Was she not a housewife? As a housewife let her serve the Lord. We greatly err when we dream that only a preacher can minister to the Lord—for Jesus has work of all sorts for all sorts of followers. Paul speaks of women who helped him much, and, assuredly, as there is no idle angel there ought to be no idle Christian. We are not saved for our own sakes, but that we may be of service to the Lord and to his people; let us not miss our calling.

In like manner, you Christian people who cannot talk,—the women especially,—I mean that you cannot preach, you are not allowed to preach,—I want you to shine. Some people seem to think that there is no shining without talking, whereas the very best shining is that of Christian women, who, if they have little to say, have a great deal to do. They make the house so bright with heavenly grace, and decorate it so sweetly with the flowers of their cheerful piety, that those round about them are won to Christ by them. Therefore, shine, dear brothers and sisters, by your gracious godliness, for so you will bring glory to God.

(MTP volume 31/45, sermons 1836/2617)

Should Women Preach in Our Churches?

Article by Kevin DeYoung (original source here – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/women-preach-churches/ )

This is not an article about the case for complementarianism instead of egalitarianism. That matters, of course, but this piece is for self-identified complementarians wondering if their theology can allow, or should allow, for women preaching.

Here is the question I want to address:

Is there biblical justification, given basic complementarian convictions, for the practice of women preaching sermons in a Sunday worship service?

Most people reading this blog understand the immediate relevancy of the question posed above. I’m not going to rehearse the cases where this question has been raised or sift through recent responses online. Instead, I’m going to interact with what I think is the best case, from a complementarian perspective, for allowing women to preach. First, I’ll explain the argument for women preaching as fairly as I can. Then I’ll make a case why the argument—no matter how plausible it may sound at first—fails to convince.

Hearing Her Voice

The best argument I’ve seen for women preaching is by the Australian minister and apologist John Dickson in his book Hearing Her Voice: A Biblical Invitation for Women to Preach (Zondervan, 2014). With affirming blurbs from J.I. Packer, Craig Blomberg, Graham Cole, and Chris Wright, one can see why this has been an influential book. Even if you aren’t familiar with the book, I’m quite certain it’s influenced people you do know. Besides the commendation from well-respected evangelical scholars, Dickson’s book is a model of clarity and accessibility. In just over 100 pages, Dickson makes a thoughtful, straightforward case—as one who admits “to being a broad complementarian” (88)—for the legitimacy of women preaching sermons in Sunday services.

Not surprisingly, Dickson focuses on 1 Timothy 2:12. While the application seems obvious to many of us—women aren’t permitted to teach or to exercise authority, so they shouldn’t preach sermons—Dickson argues that we’ve misunderstood what Paul meant by teaching. “Put simply,” Dickson writes, “there are numerous public-speaking ministries mentioned in the New Testament—teaching, exhorting, evangelising, prophesying, reading, and so on—and Paul restricts just one of them to qualified males: ‘teaching’” (11-12).

At the heart of Dickson’s argument is a simple syllogism, we can summarize like this:

  1. The only thing women can’t do in worship is teach.
  2. For Paul, teaching was a technical and narrowly conceived enterprise that is not the same as our modern sermon.
  3. Therefore, women can speak in almost every way in a church service, including preaching the sermon.

So, if preaching a sermon does not count as teaching, what did Paul mean by teaching? Dickson explains:

1 Timothy 2:12 does not refer to a general type of speaking based on Scripture. Rather, it refers to a specific activity found throughout the pages of the New Testament, namely preserving and laying down the tradition handed on by the apostles. This activity is different from the explanation and application of a Bible passage found in today’s typical expository sermon. (12)

Dickson builds the case for this preliminary conclusion in four parts.

Part One. There are several different kinds of speaking mentioned in the Bible: prophesying, evangelising, reading, exhorting, teaching, and so on. We know from texts like 1 Corinthians 12:281 Corinthians 14Romans 12:4-8, and 1 Timothy 4:13 that Paul did not treat these speaking ministries as identical. Only one of these types of speaking is restricted to men, the activity of teaching (27).

Part Two. In the ancient world, and specifically for Paul, to teach (didasko) was a technical term for passing on a fixed oral tradition (34, 45). Teaching does not refer to expounding or explaining but to transmitting words intact (33). With the close of the biblical canon, there is not the same need for teaching in this technical sense.

Part Three. In the New Testament, teaching never means explaining or applying a biblical passage (50, 54). A teacher was someone who carefully passed down the fixed traditions or the body of apostolic words from their original source to a new community of faith (57, 59, 61). Some contemporary sermons may contain elements of this transmission, but this is not the typical function of weekly exposition (64). What we think of as the sermon is more aptly called exhortation (65).

Part Four. The apostolic deposit is now found in the pages of the New Testament. No individual is charged with preserving and transmitting the fixed oral traditions about Jesus (72, 74). Our preachers may be analogous to ancient teachers, but we do not preserve and transmit the apostolic deposit to the same degree, in the same manner, or with the same authority (73, 75). The typical sermon where a preacher comments on the teaching of the apostles, exhorts us to follow that teaching, and then applies that teaching is not itself teaching. The modern sermon is, depending on your definition, more like prophesying or exhorting, both of which are open to women (75).

From Yes to No

Dickson includes academic footnotes in making his case, as well as caveats and qualifications along the way. But the gist of his argument is arrestingly simple: Teaching is not what we do when we preach a sermon. Only teaching is forbidden to women. Women, therefore, can preach sermons in our churches.

I find Dickson’s thesis unconvincing for two basic reasons. I believe his view of ancient teaching is overly narrow and his view of contemporary preaching is exceedingly thin. Let me unpack this conclusion by looking at teaching from a variety of angles.

Teaching in the Early Church

The strength of Dickson’s approach is that he rightly points to the different speaking words in the New Testament. True, teaching and exhorting and prophesying and reading are not identical. And yet, his overly technical definition of “teaching” does not fit the evidence, or in some instances even square with basic common sense. If “I do not permit a woman to teach” can mean “I permit a woman to preach because preaching doesn’t involve teaching” we must be employing very restrictive definitions of preaching and teaching.

More to the point, we have to wonder why this highly nuanced reading has been lost on almost every commentator for two millennia. In a revealing endnote on the last page of the book, Dickson acknowledges “I have no doubt that within time the word ‘teaching’ in the early church came to mean explaining and applying the written words of the New Testament (and entire Bible). That would be an interesting line of research, but I am not sure it would overturn the evidence that in 1 Tim. 2:12 Paul had a different meaning of this important term” (104). That is a telling admission. But it invites the question: “If ‘teaching’ in the ancient world clearly had a narrow meaning of repeating oral traditions, why does no one seem to pick up on this exclusively technical definition?” To be sure, the Bible is our final authority, but when an argument relies so heavily on first century context, you would expect the earliest centuries of the church to reinforce the argument, not undermine it.

Take the Didache, for example. This late first century document has a lot to say about teachers. They are supposed  to “teach all these things that have just been mentioned” [in the first ten chapters of the book] (11:1). They are to teach what accords with the church order laid out in the Didache (11:2). Importantly, the Didache assumes the existence of traveling teachers, apostles, and prophets, all of whom are said to teach (didaskon) (11:10-11). It is telling that “teaching” is a broad enough term to include what prophets and other speakers do, not to mention the Didache itself.

While “teach” can certainly include the passing on of oral traditions about Jesus, it cannot be restricted to only this. As Hughes Oliphant Old explains, “the Didache assumes a rather large body of prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons who devote full time to their preaching and teaching” (The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 1:256). With full time teachers and “a daily assembly of the saints, at which the Word was preached” it is hard to imagine these various ministers engaged in “teaching” that steadfastly avoided the explanation of all biblical texts.

Of course, the true teachers were passing on the apostolic deposit, but this does not mean they were simply repeating the sayings of Jesus. In the Didache, parents are told to teach (didaxeis) the fear of the Lord to their children (4:9). The author(s) apparently does not think teaching is restricted to a highly technical definition. Nor does he think preaching is little more than a running commentary plus application. “My child, remember night and day the one who preaches God’s word to you, and honor him as though he were the Lord. For wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is” (4:1). According to the Didache, teaching is broader than transmitting oral traditions and preaching involves more than a few words of exhortation.

Teaching in the Synagogue

One of the key points in Dickson’s argument is that the Pauline conception of teaching is rooted in the practice of the Pharisees who passed on the oral traditions of their fathers (Mark 7:7). Just as the Pharisees might repeat the sayings of Hillel, so might the New Testament teacher repeat the sayings of Jesus. According to Dickson, the closest parallel to New Testament “teaching” is the passing down of the rabbinical traditions that we find repeated and piled up in the Mishnah (39).

This is an important line of reasoning for Dickson, one he repeats several times (39, 73, 100-102). The problem with the argument is twofold.

First, while the Mishnah collects the sayings of first- and second-century rabbis, these rabbis saw themselves explaining and applying the Torah. In other words, even if the Mishnah is our example of “teaching,” there is no bright line between “oral tradition” and “explaining texts.”

Second, the Jewish synagogue service provides a much better parallel to early Christian worship services than the Mishnah. After all, Paul is talking about corporate worship in 1 Timothy 2. For centuries leading up to the Christian era, the Jews had cultivated the art of preaching and gave it a privileged place in synagogue worship. According to Old, “there was a large core of dedicated men who had given their lives to the study of the Scriptures, and who prepared themselves to preach when the leadership of the synagogue invited them to do so” (The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 1:102). It makes more sense to think Paul had in mind the well-developed tradition of men doing exposition in the Jewish worship service, when he prohibits women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12, as opposed to the mere repetition of oral traditions.

Teaching in the Old Testament

What’s more, this synagogue teaching ministry had its roots in the Old Testament. Moses taught (didasko, LXX) the people the statutes and rules of God—repeating them yes, but also explaining and applying them (Deut. 4:1-14). The priests, at least some of them, were to be teaching priests (2 Chr. 15:3), going through the cities of Judah teaching (edidaskon, LXX) people the Book of the Law (2 Chr. 17:9). Ezra set his heart to study the Law of the Lord and to teach (didaskein, LXX) his statutes and rules in Israel (Ezra 7:10). Likewise, Ezra and the Levites read from the Law of God and taught (edidasken, LXX) the people so they could understand the reading (Neh. 8:8).

The practices described in Ezra and Nehemiah give every indication of already being well established. There are texts, there are teachers, there is a congregation. We have in miniature the most essential elements of Jewish synagogue services and the Christian services that would use synagogue worship as their starting point. It’s hard to imagine Paul meant to communicate, let alone that his audience would understand, that when he spoke of “teaching” he had in mind nothing of the Old Testament or Jewish tradition and was only thinking of Pharisees passing along oral sayings. In each of the Old Testament instances above, the teacher explains a written text. That doesn’t mean didasko must involve exposition, but the burden of proof rests with those who assert that it most certainly does not mean that.

Teaching in the New Testament

I agree with Dickson that the prohibition against women teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be taken in the broadest sense possible. Paul does not mean to forbid women from ever transmitting knowledge to someone else. He is addressing propriety in worship, not the sort of teaching we find from women to women in Titus 2 or from Priscilla and Aquila to Apollos in Acts 18. But just because we reject the broadest definition of teaching does not mean the only other option is the narrowest definition. Dickson would have us equate “teaching” with passing on oral tradition. That was certainly part of teaching in the apostolic age, but many of the places in the New Testament that speak of the apostolic tradition never mention didasko (1 Cor. 2:2; 3:10; 11:2; 11:23-26; 15:1-11Gal. 1:6-91 Thess. 4:1-2). The language instead is of receiving, delivering, or passing on.

Crucially, the Sermon on the Mount is labelled as “teaching” (Matt. 7:28-29). According to Dickson, the Sermon on the Mount is “teaching” because Jesus is correcting the tradition of the scribes and handing down his own authoritative traditions. What Jesus is not doing is expositing a text (54). Of course, Dickson is right in what Jesus is doing. He is wrong, however, in asserting what Jesus is not doing. The Sermon on the Mount is filled with Old Testament allusions, parallels, and explanations. One doesn’t have to claim that Jesus is giving a modern sermon as we might. The point is not that “teaching” everywhere in the New Testament means “exposition,” but that the two ideas cannot be neatly separated.

Jesus was recognized by many as “rabbi,” an informal title meaning “teacher.” As a teacher, Jesus frequently quoted from or explained Old Testament Scripture. In fact, Old argues that Jesus’ teaching in the Temple courts at the end of his ministry was meant to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the rabbinical office. In Matthew 21-23 we see the different schools of the time—Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees—come to Jesus with their questions about the Law and Jesus answers them all (1:106). In solving their riddles and stepping out of their traps, Jesus showed himself to be the master teacher, the rabbi of all rabbis. And in this display, he constantly explained and interpreted Scripture. The first-century Jewish understanding of teaching must not be separated from the judicious interpretation of inspired texts, nor can it be restricted to “passing along oral traditions.”

Teaching in the Pastoral Epistles

But what if—despite the Old Testament background and the synagogue background and the use of “teaching” in the Sermon on the Mount and the broader understanding of teacher in the early Church—Paul choose to use a very narrow definition of teaching in the pastoral epistles? After surveying all the uses of “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles, Dickson concludes that “teaching,” as a verb and a noun, refer not to Bible exposition but to apostolic words laid down for the churches (59). Simply put, “teach” does not mean exegete and apply; it means repeat and lay down (64-65). Pauline “teaching” was never(Dickson’s word, my emphasis) exposition in the contemporary sense (74). Whatever else teaching may entail in other places, according to Dickson, for Paul it only meant laying down oral tradition.

Dickson is certainly right that “teaching” in the Pastoral Epistles is about passing on the good deposit of apostolic truth about Jesus. Conservative complementarian scholar Bill Mounce, for example, has no problem affirming that 1 Timothy 2:12 has to do with “the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures” or that it involves “the preservation and transmission of the Christian tradition” (Pastoral Epistles, 126). But notice that Mounce does not reduce the Christian tradition to oral sayings only, to the exclusion of Scriptural explication. Likewise, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament argues that didaskein “is closely bound to Scripture even in the NT” (146). Later the TDNT affirms that even in the pastoral epistles “the historical connexion between Scripture and didaskein is still intact” (147).

Surely this is right. Are we really to think that when Paul insisted that the elders be apt to teach that this had no reference to handling the Scriptures or rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)? Teaching must be broader than passing on oral traditions, for how else could Paul tell the older women “to teach what is good” (kalodidaskalo) to the younger women? Or consider 1 Timothy 4:13 where Paul tells Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, and to teaching. Sure, these are not identical tasks, but on Dickon’s interpretation Timothy was to read the Scriptures, exhort from the Scriptures, and then lay down the apostolic deposit without every expounding any of the Scriptures just read.

Similarly, Dickson argues that when Paul says all Scripture is profitable for teaching, he means Timothy would privately read Scripture so that he could be better equipped to publicly pass on the good deposit, but again, without expounding a Bible passage (52-53). If this is correct, then Paul never meant for teachers to explain Bible verses in reproving, correcting, or training either. The Bible may inform these tasks, but it never involves exposition of any kind (57). This strains credulity to the breaking point. Look at the preaching in Acts. There was hardly any handing down of the good deposit that did not also explain the Scriptures. And in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul is explicitly passing along what he also received the message is not the mere repetition of verbal formulas, but the apostolic tradition that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. One does not have to equate didasko with a three-point sermon to see that transmitting the apostolic deposit can scarcely be done apart from biblical references and exposition.

Teaching in Today’s Sermon

If Dickson’s definition of ancient teaching is too narrow, his understanding of contemporary preaching is too impoverished. In Dickson’s telling, the sermon is essentially a running commentary plus application. I confess I have a very different view of what preaching entails, not because preaching is less than exposition and application, but because it is much more. The preacher is a kerux, a herald (2 Tim. 1:11). Of course, we don’t preach with the authority of an apostle, but for those qualified men called to preach they do pass along the apostolic deposit and they ought to preach with authority. Why else would Paul command Timothy—with such dramatic language and with such dire exhortations–to preach the word; to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching? (2 Tim. 4:1-2)

In the end, I believe Dickson’s approach is not only historically and exegetically unconvincing, it is practically unworkable—at least for complementarians. Egalitarians will affirm women preaching for all sorts of reasons. But complementarians who try to thread the needle and argue that “this message on Sunday morning is a sharing not a sermon” or “this woman preaching is under the authority of the session” will find that their arguments for not letting women preach all the time and in any way look exceedingly arbitrary.

At various points, Dickson admits that some preaching today may involve teaching and that the different kinds of speaking in the New Testament probably overlapped.

  • “I am not suggesting that these three forms of speech (teaching, prophesying, and exhorting) are strictly separate or that there is no significant overlap of content and function” (24).
  • Some contemporary sermons involve something close to authoritatively preserving and laying down the apostolic deposit, but I do not believe this is the typical function of the weekly exposition” (64).
  • “I have no doubt that Timothy added to these apostolic teachings his own appeals, explanations, and applications, but these are not the constitutive or defining elements of teaching. At that point, Timothy would be moving into what is more appropriately called ‘exhortation.’” (65)
  • “I am not creating a hard distinction between teaching and exhorting, but I am observing that, whereas teaching is principally about laying something down in fixed form, exhorting is principally about urging people to obey and apply God’s truth.” (65)
  • “No doubt there was a degree of teaching going on in exhorting and prophesying, just as there was some exhorting (and maybe prophesying) going on in teaching…” (66-67)
  • “I also think that some transmission of the apostolic deposit still goes on in every decent sermon, in some more than others.” (79)

With all these elements of preaching jumbled together, how could Paul have expected Timothy to untangle the ball of yarn and know what he was supposed to not permit women to do? Just as importantly, how are we to discern when a sermon is just exhortation without authority and when it moves into an authoritative transmission of the apostolic deposit? Perhaps it would be better to see “teaching” as more or less what the preacher does on Sunday as opposed to a highly technical term that doesn’t make sense out of the early church, the Jewish synagogue, Jesus’ example, or Paul’s instructions. The heraldic event—no matter the platform provided by the pastor or the covering given by the elders—cannot be separated from exercising authority and teaching, the two things women are not permitted do in the worship service.

Prophecy and Teaching – Not the Same Thing

Article: Why it is important not to conflate prophecy and teaching in discussions about women preaching by Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. (original source here: http://www.dennyburk.com/why-it-is-important-not-to-conflate-prophecy-and-teaching-in-discussions-about-women-preaching/ )

In evangelical debates over women in ministry, two biblical texts have always stood as a prima facieobstacle to the egalitarian view:

1 Timothy 2:12 “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
1 Corinthians 14:34 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

At first blush, these two texts seem to settle the matter in favor of the complementarian position. After all, this is the sense adopted in the vast majority of English translations. How could they all be wrong? Clearly Paul does not intend for women to be teaching/preaching within the church, right?

Egalitarians have marshaled a variety of exegetical arguments against this prima faciereading. They argue that, despite appearances, Paul doesn’t really mean to shut down women from exercising their teaching/preaching gifts in the gathered assembly. Egalitarians point out that Paul clearly understood women to be gifted teachers (e.g., Acts 18:26Titus 2:3). Moreover, the very same book that enjoins female silence also allows for women to prophesy to the entire church (1 Corinthians 11:5). These female prophets—along with their Old Testament counterparts like Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah—demonstrate that whatever Paul means in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, he can’t mean to impose a universal ban on women teaching men. He must mean something else.

One of the major problems with the egalitarian argument at this point is that it conflates the gifts of prophecy and teaching. For example, Gordon Fee writes:

It seems altogether likely that Paul intends “praying and prophesying” to be not exclusive of other forms of ministry but representative of ministry in general. And since “prophets” precedes “teachers” in the ranking in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and prophesying is grouped with teaching, revelation and knowledge in 1 Corinthians 14:6, one may legitimately assume that women and men together shared in all these expressions of Spirit gifting, including teaching, in the gathered assembly.1

Fee’s logic here is clear. Because Paul allows women to prophesy to the gathered assembly and because prophecy is a greater gift than teaching, then certainly he would allow women to teach as well.

This account of things, however, misses the fact that Paul treats prophecy and teaching as two different gifts and that he therefore regulates them differently in his churches. Paul never issues a blanket prohibition on female prophecy to men in any of his letters, but he does on female teaching. Why is that?

To answer that question, we have to understand what the difference between prophecy and teaching is. The gift of prophecy consists in spontaneous utterance inspired by the Spirit. Prophecy therefore consists of divine revelation. The gift of teaching, however, is different. Teaching does not consist in new revelation but in instruction based on revelation that has already been given.2

This difference between teaching and prophecy is crucial because the gift of teaching is not merely passing along information from one person to another. The gift of teaching in Paul’s writings has a certain content and mode. The content of the gift of teaching is the authoritative apostolic deposit, which is now inscribed for us in the New Testament (Col. 2:72 Thess. 2:151 Tim. 4:116:22 Tim. 2:2).3 This teaching therefore is done in the imperative mood. It contains explanation, but it also includes commands and prohibitions. For that reason, it is always authoritative because it instructs people what they are to believe and to do.4

1 Timothy 4:11, “Command and teach these things.”
2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”

It is very clear that when Paul has the gift of teaching in mind, he is thinking of instruction given with imperatives and commands. As Douglas Moo concludes, “teaching always has this restrictive sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction.”5

That is why Paul issues the prohibition that he does in 1 Timothy 2:12. Women must not teach men. Why? Because of the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13). The role of leader in the first marriage was Adam’s. His leadership was established in part on the basis that God created him first (a principle of primogeniture). The order of creation establishes male headship in marriage (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3Eph. 5:23), and a woman teaching and exercising authority overturns this order. After all, how can a wife submit to her husband if she is telling him what to do when she preaches? Avoiding this potential conflict is the reason why Paul bases the gender norms for teaching upon the gender norms for marriage.

This also explains why Paul commands women to be silent in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. Paul is not commanding absolute silence, or else he would be contradicting his allowance of female prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:5. No, Paul is specifically commanding female silence during the judgment of prophecies.6 What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies? Are husbands and wives supposed to suspend male headship during corporate worship? Paul’s answer to that question is a clear no.

Paul does not want anything to happen during corporate worship or in any other setting that would upset the headship principle that he so carefully exhorted his readers to obey in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. For that reason, Paul enjoins women to refrain from the judgment of prophecies. He’s not commanding an absolute silence on the part of women. Indeed he expects them to be praying and prophesying. He does, however, command them to be silent whenever prophesies are being judged. And the women are to do so out of deference to male headship.

Notice that the explanation in verse 34 indicates that headship is indeed the issue: “The women… should be in submission…” The Greek word translated as “submission” is the same one from verse 32. A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy. To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophesies. In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12.

What is the bottom line here? The fact of female prophecy in the Old and New Testaments is no argument in favor of female teaching/preaching. The gifts of prophecy and teaching are distinct in Paul’s writings, and Paul therefore regulates them differently. While Paul allows women to prophesy in the presence of men, he does not allow them to teach men (1 Tim. 2:121 Cor. 14:34-36). This feature of the New Testament’s teaching about gifts and ministry is lost whenever the gifts of prophecy and teaching are conflated. This is a confusion that careful readers of scripture should wish to avoid.

—————

1 Gordon D. Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, Gordan D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 149.

2 Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are & Why They Matter (Nashville: B&H, 2018), 21.

3 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 185.

4 Indeed the standard lexicon for the Greek New Testament says that the word translated as teach means “to tell someone what to do” (BDAG, s.v. didasko).

5 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?,” 185.

6 D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 151-53.

Women Keeping Silent?

Denny Burk interprets the text (original source here:
https://cbmw.org/topics/complementarianism/must-women-really-keep-silent-in-the-churches/ )

The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has proven to be more than a little controversial over the years. The reason for that is due in no small part to the clash that this text brings to modern egalitarian sensibilities. Paul writes,

33b As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

What is going on in these verses? Does Paul really mean to say that women must never say anything in a worship service? That is how some people have read these verses over the years, but I think that is a misreading of the text. Why? For starters, it would create a hopeless contradiction with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which indicates that women were “praying and prophesying” in the church. Paul doesn’t rebuke their praying and prophesying in church. On the contrary, he gives them instructions on how to do it in the right way! In a way that allows them to speak but that at the same time honors male headship.

Women prophesying in the assembly was in keeping with what the apostle Peter said was characteristic of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit predicted in Joel 2, “‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…’” (Acts 2:17). Who’s going to prophesy? Sons and daughters.

So if you take verse 34 to be an absolute prohibition on women speaking at all in a worship service, then you have adopted an interpretation that makes chapter 14 to contradict chapter 11. And that cannot be, because God cannot contradict himself.

This apparent contradiction has led some interpreters to suggest that verses 14:34-35 were not really written by Paul. They argue that some scribe must have come along after Paul and slipped these verses into Paul’s letter. The only problem with this view is that every single Greek manuscript of 1 Corinthians that we have includes these verses. There are a handful of manuscripts in which the verses appear after verse 40. But that is not evidence that verses 34-35 aren’t original to Paul. It’s evidence that some scribes sought to preserve the flow of Paul’s argument about prophecy by moving these two verses to the end. They were wrong to do that, but we would be doing worse than they did to rip them out of the text altogether.

No, these verses are original to Paul. So does that mean we have a contradiction with chapter 11? No, it doesn’t. If we read these verses in context, it’s very clear what is going on here. Paul is commanding the women to keep silent in a certain context—during the judgment of prophecies. Remember what Paul just said in verses 29 and 32:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said… 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

Prophets are not only supposed to prophesy but also to evaluate other prophesies to see whether they are true. Why? Because the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. A prophet must submit to the evaluation of other prophets.

But this creates a potential problem. What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies? Are husbands and wives supposed to suspend male headship during corporate worship? Paul’s answer to that question is a clear no.

Paul does not want anything to happen during corporate worship that would upset the headship principle that he so carefully exhorted them to obey in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. For that reason, he enjoins women in this context to refrain from the judgment of prophecies. He’s not commanding an absolute silence on the part of women. Indeed he expects them to be praying and prophesying. He does, however, command them to be silent whenever prophesies are being judged. And the women are to do so out of deference to male headship.

Notice that the explanation in verse 34 indicates that headship is indeed the issue: “The women… should be in submission…” The Greek word translated as “submission” is the same one from verse 32. A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy. To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophesies (see D. A. Carson, RBMW). In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Paul then instructs:

 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

If a woman has a question about a prophecy, she should reserve all discussions for private conversations with her husband. She shouldn’t raise questions or objections during the worship service. Why? For it is shameful for her to “speak” in any way that might suggest a subversion of male headship. The word translated as “shameful” is only used one other time in 1 Corinthians—in chapter 11:6 where Paul once again is talking about potential violations of male headship.

Again, Paul is not against women speaking altogether. He acknowledges that they are praying out loud and prophesying out loud in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5). He simply does not want them to evaluate prophecies in the assembly because that would violate the headship norm.

If this interpretation is correct, then there are at least two implications that we should heed during worship with our own congregations. First, we go beyond the example of scripture if we foreclose what Paul clearly allows—women praying and sharing God’s revelation during worship services. I happen to be a cessationist, which means that I do not believe that prophecy is an ongoing experience in Christ’s churches (go here for my defense of cessationism). Having said that, God’s revelation still has a place in our worship services through scripture. Today, reading aloud God’s revelation from scripture is the functional equivalent of prophesying God’s revelation in Paul’s day. Biblically speaking, it would be totally in keeping with Paul’s instructions for women to be reading scripture and praying during the gathered assembly of God’s people. Both of those things can be done in a way that honors the headship principle (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2-16).

Second, it would be a violation of headship for women to teach or to exercise authority in corporate worship. Teaching is explaining and applying an already-given revelation. The judgment of prophecies would have included evaluations which are the functional equivalent of teaching. And that is why Paul does not wish for women to judge prophecies in the gathered assembly. It would be like allowing them to teach and to exercise authority—something that he clearly prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12“I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Paul has one last item that is worthy of commenting on:

36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

Remember that Paul begins his command with an appeal to how things are done “in all the churches” (v. 33b). Why was that a relevant consideration? The word of God is not the exclusive domain of any one church. The word of God did not originate in Corinth, nor was it the only place that it came to. The word of God is abroad in the churches. The Corinthians need to pay attention to how the Spirit of God is moving and working in all the churches. If all the churches are hearing from the Spirit one thing, but the Corinthians are practicing another thing, then that’s a good indication that the Corinthians are the outliers, not everyone else. Everyone else is observing male headship. So also should Corinth. As Paul writes about headship in 1 Corinthians 11:16, “We have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”

Paul wishes to emphasize that his teaching about male headship is not something that is good for some people but not for others. No, it is a part of God’s creation design, and it is the pattern that must prevail in every church. Verse 36 confirms that the word of God is not the exclusive domain of the Corinthian church. God’s word came to them and to all the other churches. If that is true, then the Corinthians ought to be honoring male headship just as all the other churches do.

People attempt to suppress Paul’s teaching about headship in a variety of ways. Some say that “head” doesn’t really mean authority. Others say that these verses aren’t really written by Paul. Others dismiss “headship” as “white” theology or some other cultural construct. All of that is rubbish. Paul says that the headship principle is recognized in all his churches. And so it must be in ours.

The Limits of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Article by Richard Holdeman – Called to faith in 1987; to marry Amy in 1989; to coach college hockey in 1992; to have daughters in 1996; to teach at I.U. in 1997; to pastor the Bloomington Reformed Presbyterian Church in 2005. (original source here)

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, NKJ)

Last year at about this time our congregation hosted Rosaria Butterfield to speak to our community about how to love people struggling with their sexual identity in ways that honor the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our event was held at a large church in town, and Dr. Butterfield’s talks were well-attended. It was a challenging and edifying couple of days for the evangelical churches in our community. Notably absent from our gatherings were men from some of the more conservative churches in our community. In what I suspect was an effort to honor God’s word through Paul (quoted above), the leaders of these congregations encouraged women to attend but did want their men coming to be taught by a woman.

While I applaud the desire to be biblically faithful, the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teaches that men can never be taught by women is not warranted by this text. Paul’s prohibitions against women teachers have a context. They are not absolute prohibitions. For starters, reading the verses surrounding those quoted above shows us, without question, that the context of the requirement for silence is the church. Paul here is not making any comment about women teaching in schools or universities or in other settings. Paul is also not addressing whether a woman could teach men about the process of childbirth (say, in Lamaze class) or the intricacies of organic chemistry (say, in a graduate chemistry program) or the details of budgeting (say, in a personal finance class).

I have known men, who objected to women teaching adult men in ANY setting, but this is simply not what Paul is talking about. It is a perversion of this text to insist that women are never to teach men.

Ok, back to Dr. Butterfield. She was speaking in a church about spiritual issues. Does that mean her speech is prohibited if men are in the audience? Once again, we must look more closely at the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. It is helpful to note that Paul later writes in 1 Timothy: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17, NKJ). He describes the office of elder as having a two-fold function. There is a ruling function in which elders act with the judicial and governing authority given to them by Christ as His under-shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4) and there is an authoritative teaching function, which is especially the work of the teaching elder/pastor (2 Timothy 4:2).

In light of this description of the work of the eldership, it seems that what Paul is doing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is excluding women from serving in the office of elder, in which they would need to have judicial authority over men and women. Paul is also excluding women from the authoritative teaching office of the church – the pulpit ministry, which is the responsibility of the eldership (Acts 20:28-31). If we allow Paul to define what he means by teaching and authority within the book of 1 Timothy, we have a clear context in which to evaluate his prohibitions against women teaching or having authority over men. What Paul is actually teaching here is that women may not serve as ruling or teaching elders in the church. What Paul is NOT doing is saying that there is an absolute prohibition against women having any responsibility within the church or being able to do any teaching within the church setting.

What do I mean? It is not a requirement for all Sunday school classes to be taught by elders. Sunday school is not the same as the authoritative teaching ministry of the pulpit. The elders are responsible for everything that is taught publicly in the church but they may delegate some teaching in non-pulpit settings to other qualified individuals in the congregation. In our church we often allow younger men, whom we think have potential to become ruling elders, to get experience teaching a Bible study or Sunday school class. This always happens under the oversight of the elders, who are ultimately responsible. In the same way, there may be circumstances when a woman has a special expertise that would make her the most qualified person to teach a class or Bible study (also under the oversight of the elders). One recent example comes to mind when we had a husband and wife team teach a class on parenting. Perhaps a woman might have expertise in financial planning or stewardship that would make her the best person to teach a class on that subject. I believe she can teach in the church (even classes with men in them) without violating what Paul is forbidding in 1 Timothy.

A number of years ago I preached a sermon series through a book of the Bible, in which I consulted a dozen commentaries. The most helpful commentary was written by a female professor of theology. We are to welcome the truth wherever we find it. I did so, and my congregation benefited from it.

I also think that women can have real responsibility (i.e., authority) in the church that does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America we affirm that the office of deacon is open to women. In talking about the qualifications for the office of deacon, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:11, “Likewise, women must be…” (literal translation). Deacons are ordained officers of the church. They serve under the authority of the elders. They have real responsibility that includes benevolence, mercy ministry, budgeting, finance, and facility maintenance (among other things). This is an authority of sorts but it is not the type of judicial/ruling authority that Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Understanding that Paul is addressing particularly the functions of the eldership in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 will help us resist the tendency in conservative, Reformed congregations to go beyond scripture in imposing limitations on the service of women in the church and the culture. We can uphold biblical standards and resist the feminizing forces in our world without reflexively restricting Christian women in the exercise of the myriad gifts they’ve been given by our Lord. The church faces enough challenges without unnecessarily imposing limitations on her members.

Can Women Teach Under the Authority of Elders?

Article by Jonathan Leeman, Editorial Director of 9Marks, and an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. (original source here – which includes links to the articles cited)

In case you’re just tuning in, a good in-house conversation among complementarians is going on between John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Andrew Wilson over whether or not women can teach in a church gathering under the authority of the elders. In order, see Piper here, Wilson here, Schreiner here, Wilson here, and Piper again here. Previously, Tim Keller has also presented Wilson’s side of things here, while John Frame has offered that same side here. (I’ve been told this conversation at Mere O is good, but I haven’t listened to it.)

Everyone agrees that there are times when women will open their Bibles and instruct men, as Pricilla does with her husband Aquilla when instructing Apollos (Acts 18:26). And everyone agrees that there is a certain kind of teaching that women must not do, based on 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.”

The question is, what are the criteria for saying when we are in the first domain versus the second domain? What’s the fence between one side and the other?

There are two things I hope to contribute here. First, I’d like to offer the simple observation that what seems to be driving the different approaches to 1 Timothy 2:12 are Presbyterian versus congregationalist conceptions of teaching and authority. And any congregationalist who agrees with Wilson or Tim Keller or John Frame is relying upon a Presbyterian understanding of teaching and authority (which is not to say a Presbyterian must adopt Wilson’s position). Second, I’d like to offer a more congregationalist distinction between authoritative teaching that occurs in the context of the gathered church, and teaching that occurs outside it.

WHAT THE PLAYERS HAVE SAID

Andrew Wilson distinguishes the two domains described above by distinguishing two different kinds of teaching—what Wilson calls big-T versus little-t teaching. Big-T teaching involves “the definition, defense, and preservation of Christian doctrine, by the church’s accredited leaders.” Little-t teaching is “a catch-all term for talking about the Bible in a church meeting.” Or: “explaining the Scriptures to each other in a peer-to-peer way, according to gifts.”

Wilson’s theological distinction between two different kinds of teaching is hardly unique. He’s backed up by no less than luminaries Tim Keller and John Frame.

Keller writes,

Elders are leaders who admit or dismiss people from the church, and they do “quality control” of members’ doctrine. These are the only things that elders exclusively can do. Others can teach, disciple, serve, witness…We do not believe that 1 Timothy 2:11 or 1 Corinthians 14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publicly. To ‘teach with authority’ (1 Timothy 2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. For example, when an elder says to a member: ‘You are telling everyone that they must be circumcised in order to be saved—that is a destructive, non-Biblical teaching which is hurting people spiritually. You must desist from it or you will have to leave the church.’ That is ‘teaching authority’—it belongs only to the elders.

And Frame writes,

Reformed theology has often distinguished between the special teaching office, which consists of the ordained elders, and the general teaching office, which includes all believers…Your committee unanimously holds that scripture excludes women from the special teaching office. Scripture plainly teaches this limitation in I Cor. 14:33-35 and in I Tim. 2:11-15. But scripture says with equal plainness that women are not excluded from the general teaching office…Paul in [1 Cor. 14:33-35] essentially forbids to women the exercise of the special office….I Tim. 2:11-12 also limits the teaching of women, but…here too Paul has in mind the special office rather than the general.

Schreiner, on the other hand, says teaching is teaching is teaching. He writes,

Teaching explicates the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 12:28–29; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 3:16; James 3:1)… it is the heart and soul of the church’s ministry until the second coming of Christ.”

Piper’s distinction between the two domains is, honestly, a bit vague for me. He writes,

It seems to me that, as men and women relate to each other in the church, men are to lead, on the analogy of the way a husband leads at home (Ephesians 5:22–33)…Thus when I think about how this leadership by men is expressed in the church, I see the regular preaching of the word of God in the weekly worship gathering as the heart of that leadership.

To risk reading into Piper (and in a direction favorable to my own view!), he is saying that teaching is exercising authority, and that in the church’s gathering only men should teach because teaching is an exercise of authority.

TWO KINDS OF TEACHING VS. TWO KINDS OF SETTINGS

To summarize the two sides, Wilson, Keller, and Frame distinguish two kinds of teaching. Wilson calls it big-T versus little-T teaching; Keller calls it authoritative versus non-authoritative teaching; and Frame calls special versus general teaching. The point is, the teaching of an elder is somehow more authoritative than the teaching of any other church member. So you have more authoritative teaching and less authoritative teaching. (In once sentence in his essay, Frame says that what’s at stake is the “occasion” of teaching. But nothing else in his article fills out this idea. Everything else he says distinguishes not between occasions but between kinds of teaching.)

When this side turns to 1 Tim. 2:12, they might either argue that “to teach and to exercise authority” is a hendiadys (reading two words as saying one thing, like “nice and cozy”)—in spite of Kostenberger’s fairly thorough refutation of this position. Or they might say that the context of chapter 3 suggests Paul has a special category of authoritative teaching in mind here. Continue reading

Let Your Pastor’s Wife Be Herself

Here’s an excellent article by Melissa Edgington that every member of a congregation should read. Lets set the bar high in loving our pastors wives well! (original source here)

Let Your Pastor’s Wife Be Herself

Every year since Chad became a pastor, we have hosted a Christmas open house in our home. I love decorating for Christmas, and I like to deck out the house and have our friends over for a fun night of hanging out and eating delicious food. Tonight is the night, and I am so looking forward to throwing open the doors and welcoming our community in.

But, I have a scandalous pastor’s wife secret: I am not baking a single thing. I’m not making punch. I’m not diving into my trusty recipe box and planning a menu. I didn’t even clean my own floors. Instead, I’m writing. I’m listening to sermons. I’m composing a talk that I’m going to deliver to a women’s group in a neighboring town. I’m wrapping gifts in paper that coordinates with my Christmas trees. I’m sending my kids off on field trips at crazy hours of the morning. I’m attending the senior adult Christmas lunch (which I am not cooking). I’m plotting with the kindergarten teacher about Christmas fun next week at school.

And our church seems to be okay with all of this. When we first came here I didn’t offer any illusions that I am a great cook or a great housekeeper or the ultimate hostess. Our amazing church secretary can prepare a meal for 250 people without batting an eye, but I break out in hives at the thought. Yet, our church members continue to encourage me in the things that I do well, in the things that I enjoy and have giftings for.

I can’t tell you what a difference that makes.

Everyone has expectations of their pastor’s wife. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have any. We should expect the pastor’s wife to be kind, spiritually-minded, and invested in her church family. But we also have to remember that every pastor’s wife has her own unique interests and talents, and she should have the freedom to minister in ways that line up with her strengths. Not all pastors’ wives are great communicators or great cooks or great decorators. Some prefer to quietly minister in the background, talking with people one on one, sending cards or texts, washing dishes in the kitchen, noticing needs that others may overlook. If your pastor’s wife is reserved and seems a little withdrawn, give her the benefit of the doubt. Assume that she is ministering in her own ways through personal contact that isn’t in the forefront. Assume that her prayers can move mountains. Assume the best of her, and pray for her to find her own ways to work alongside her husband in the mission of the church.

If your pastor’s wife is loud and boisterous and fun and tends to say things she will later regret, have grace for her. Assume that her outgoing personality draws people to her and to the church. Assume that her ability to talk to people helps her love them well. Assume that she is hearing stories in her conversations that need to be told, and that she is bringing outsiders into her circle with her extroverted ways.

And if your pastor’s wife doesn’t cook or doesn’t often have people over, if she is not interested in decorating or in fashion or in crafting or in whatever it is that you think a pastor’s wife should do, then give her the space to be herself. God calls pastors’ wives into ministry just like He calls pastors. And He uniquely gifts them to do the work He would have them do. Your pastor’s wife may not look or act or be exactly like you expected, but she will be much more likely to flourish in her role if you assume the best of her, if you pray for her instead of criticize.

Above all, please remember that your pastor’s wife is human. She will make terrible mistakes. She will say stupid things. She will have days when she is selfish and self-centered. She will go into spiritual slumps. I know because I do all of this and more. But, one thing that keeps bringing me back to a biblical focus is the grace and goodness of the church of Jesus Christ. This family loves me well and puts up with my quirks and my moods and my weaknesses. And they don’t even seem to care that I can’t cook to save my life. What a blessing. What a love. Be that church member that commits to supporting your pastor’s wife in her uniqueness. It will bless her more than you know.