Manipulating Scripture so Women Can Be Preachers of the Word

Manipulating Scripture so Women Can Be Preachers of the Word

Do you want to know why there are so many women standing behind pulpits today and preaching the Word of God when it’s clear that they are not called to do this but instead are commanded to be silent in the churches and not be in authority over men? There is a great manipulation of the Word of God going on right now that feminists have drummed up in order to change the clear commands that they don’t like and don’t want to obey. Many women today despise the teachings of the Apostle Paul.

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12).—“The whole purpose of these weighty admonitions of the great founder of the Gentile Churches relegates Christian women to their own legitimate sphere of action and influence—the quiet of their own homes” (Ellicot’s Commentary). I love the commentary on this verse since I love being a woman and I love being quiet in my home but I’m sure feminists mock this commentary’s interpretation. They falsely believe these old commentaries are no longer relevant for today.

Gail Wallace is a good example of a woman who does a great job at manipulating and watering down this verse and I will show you how and why she is wrong since it’s becoming more and more common today.

First of all, she states that the word “authority” in this verse is a bad translation. Of course, she must say this in order to do away with women not being in authority over men so this is typically their first line of attack. Go to the Greek and make it say something other than what it states even though every single legitimate version of the Bible uses the word “authority” but for some reason, she knows better, along with all the women who believe the same.

I do want to mention one of the newest versions or perversions of the Bible (International Standard Version) and how it has interpreted this verse: “Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.” Feminists and women preachers must have written and use this version since they can now freely teach and have authority over men as long as they don’t “instigate conflict toward a man!”  Blech.

Then Mrs. Wallace claims that hardly anyone teaches that women should be silent in the church which I believe is true and shameful. It’s most likely because leaders in the churches fear women. I have been in one church where they take this verse seriously and I enjoyed it very much. I have no desire to speak out in church or have any authority over men in a church setting or anywhere for that matter. Also, just because something isn’t taught in the churches doesn’t mean we shouldn’t obey it! Rarely is submission, temperance (moderation in everything, including eating), modesty, or being a keeper at home taught but we, as godly woman, must obey all of God’s commands.

She uses 1 Timothy 2:14, which she believes couldn’t possible be true, in order to disregard the clear instructions of 1 Timothy 2:12. “And with rare exceptions, no one holds that women are saved in childbearing.” Okay, if this is the case, can we easily pick and choose what verses to believe and which ones to disregard if we don’t understand them completely? No! The meaning of this verse is that women’s place is in the home with their families and/or they will be saved through the birth of Christ. Unlike 1 Timothy 2:14, however, 1 Timothy 2:12 is very easy to understand. Even a child could understand what it means but not feminists apparently and it’s only because they don’t like it.

Next, she wrote, “There is no mention of this in the rest of Paul’s writings, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter.” Not true. The verse right before this verse: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” I’m also not sure how she missed these verses from 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” but she most likely has a way to twist them to mean something “enlightened” as well. Priests from the Old Testament, prophets, patriarchs, kings, and Jesus’ disciples (those in authority) were ALL men!

 Then she wrote that the Apostle Paul supported women in leadership positions. Where? She didn’t list any verses or women that Paul specifically supported in leadership positions. Phebe was a “servant of the church” (Romans 16:1 KJV) and Priscilla was never spoken about as in a leadership position either.

“It is baffling to me that some church leaders and theologians give such weight to the 1 Timothy 2 passage when many other portions of scripture support equality.” What other verses support equality in church leadership? Again, no verses to back up her assertions.

“Churches find it impossible to put 1 Timothy 2:12 into practice in a consistent or logical way.” Therefore, we throw out the verse, try to manipulate it to say something it doesn’t, and put women in leadership positions in the church? No! I agree that churches put this verse into practice in different ways or ignore it completely but I have never attended a church with a female elder and never will. I will not listen to a female preacher. I even prefer men leading worship and praying but I know this isn’t popular in today’s feminized, watered-down churches. Just because it’s not practiced in a consistent or logical way doesn’t nullify God’s clear command.

Then Mrs. Wallace also wrote, “I think it’s significant that this is a personal letter written to Timothy and not to the church-at-large.” And why does she believe this? Are women better and more enlightened today than the church he wrote this for? Can we do this with any and all letters the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church? NO! There is zero indication that this letter is not directed to the entire Church of today since He wrote all of his letters for our exhortation, rebuke, encouragement, and teaching under the New Covenant of grace in which we now live since Christ’s death and resurrection.

“At the same time, God is raising women up all over the world today in all kinds of arenas, including the church.” No, Mrs. Wallace, God isn’t raising up any women in the Church to be leaders. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It doesn’t mean that women are any less valuable to the Kingdom of God. It simply means that God has a different and unique will and calling for women.

Now for some wisdom from the Matthew Henry Commentary about this verse: “According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion.”  Yes, women, we are not to be public teachers in the church nor in authority over men. Older women are instructed to teach younger women the ways of godly womanhood but other than this, I believe all teaching in the Church should be taught by men.

This is from a newer commentary that was written in 1992: “Paul’s main concern in this section is proper order within the church. Men, he writes, should pray and teach. Women should adorn themselves modestly and do good works, but they should not be teaching publicly or leading men. Verse 15 explains what their primary concern should be: ‘childbearing.’ Thus, it means that much of God’s judgment of women will be based on how well they perform their God-given role in bearing children.”

 Some churches allow women to pray, share their testimonies, and of course, sing and praise the Lord since none of these fall specifically under teaching or being in authority over men. However, we are told that women should be silent in the church also, so if 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 is not taught in your church and what all this includes, come to your own convictions about how silent in the church that you should be after careful consideration of the Word and ask your husband what he believes to be true. I prefer to err on the side of being too silent than not be silent enough.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:11

***For anyone who has a question about women prophesying in the church, here is a post I did on this subject.

74 thoughts on “Manipulating Scripture so Women Can Be Preachers of the Word

  1. Not only do you disparage an amazing woman who has changed the lives of many, you have also failed to read scripture with the kind of thoughtfulness the text requires. Some women are called by God to speak, to preach, to bear witness to God’s love, grace, and mercy; and to suggest they do otherwise means these women are not allowed to be who God has created them to be.

    1. I didn’t “disparage” Mrs. Wallace, Melanie. I pointed out her false teachings which they are since they aren’t biblical. No women are called to preach. Elders and deacons, the leaders of the churches, are to be the “husband of one wife.” She went to the most liberal seminary there is according to this article (http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2006/03/seminaries_for_.html) which means they manipulate Scripture any way they “feel” led instead of believing it the way it was written.

      Yes, women can bear witness to God’s love, grace, and mercy by living lives that are pleasing to Him and loving, serving, and sharing their faith with whomever God puts into their path, especially the children the Lord may bless them with.

      1. You most certainly did disparage me by accusing me of manipulating and watering down scripture, and stating that a child could undertand something better than I could. If that’s not disparaging I don’t know what is. Your post is certainly not an example of how to engage in Christian dialog with another believer.

        1. I only wrote what was true. You do manipulate and water down this verse that even children could easily understand: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12). You are not alone, sadly, because many women do it, too. I pray your eyes will be opened to the truth of God’s Word.

          I am simply warning the women I am teaching to be aware of false doctrine concerning women in the church. They have ears to hear and eyes to see so I trust they will be discerning in their study of this subject.

          1. Lori, respectfully I have to ask, would you appreciate someone saying to you, “You do manipulate and water down this verse that even children could understand”?

            You insulted a fellow sister in Christ, not to mention someone I highly regard. It’s one thing to objectively discuss Bible doctrine and differences of interpretation, but to accuse, insult and disparage Gail is crossing the line of how to treat a fellow family member.

            Gail and those of us who believe in a different interpretation of Scripture do take the Bible seriously. We’ve studied and continue to study the biblical texts in order to properly understand God’s message.

            We’re all on the same team here…we’re all Christians saved by God’s grace. We may disagree with one another doctrinally , but surely even in our disagreement we can still be kind and respectful.~

          2. She is a false teacher, Tami, so I have no problem speaking against what she teaches and calling it what it is: manipulating and watering down Scripture. From the words of Michelle Lesley, “Every single book of the New Testament except Philemon warns against false teachers or false doctrine. Jesus called out false teachers. So did Peter, Paul, John, Jude, and other New Testament figures. And they usually did so much more harshly than I do. Are you ready to say that Jesus Himself and the apostles writing under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit were being unloving, ungodly, hateful, etc., for speaking against false teachers? That’s a very serious allegation to make against the Jesus you claim to follow.”

            https://michellelesleybooks.com/2016/06/17/answering-the-opposition-responses-to-the-most-frequently-raised-discernment-objections/

    2. Don’t you find it curious that this new understanding of the Greek word “authentein” which has for 2000 years been translated as “authority over men” can be suddenly found to “perhaps” mean “abuse a man?” And this new found translation and interpretation comes just at the time of the rise of feminism?

      The fact is that in any question of translation of a word in the Greek text, context must rule. The verse immediately before the use of the word “authentein” says, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness” and immediately after says, “rather, she is to remain quiet.”

      How in the world is a woman in the church to exercise any authority if she is to remain silent in the church and receive instruction at home from her husband?

      Furthermore, this passage is an introduction to church order as immediately in Ch. 3 Paul speaks of the qualifications of elders and deacons and all were men. If he had any intent of putting women into leadership he would have said so in Chapter 3.

      The fact that a person changes lives and sends them rocketing into the church to usurp authority, gaining great reputations and glory, is no proof that God intends it that way. The true church of Christ has been ravished by wolves, deceivers and tares since its inception, and such will continue, and probably get worse towards the end of time. Read the book of Revelation and discover that Christ is not happy with his Church, and if we accept the Word as it is plainly written, not happy if a woman in the church is teaching men or exercising authority over them. That is what it says, so please do not fault us for accepting the Word of God as it is written without all the gymnastics to get it to say something different because if fits our culture better.

      1. Ken, “to have authority over” is English. So we can’t say that authentein has been translated this way for 2000 years. The earliest English translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 was in 1536.

        The earliest translations of 1 Timothy 2:12 and authentein were in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin and the words these translations chose had the senses of domineering and bullying.
        More on this here: http://margmowczko.com/authentein-1-timothy2_12/

        1. Marge we understand that the idea of to domineer is a possible rendering of the word authentein, but this is not it’s most likely meaning. But even if one were to grant that Paul is telling women in the church not to be domineering, any sphere of authority they may have in the church would be significantly limited by the command for women to be silent in the church. The greatest authority in the church is the responsibility to accurately divide and teach the word of God, and silent women cannot do this.

          What you and your group want to do is to try and dismantle each and every spot that leads to the prohibition of women teaching men in the church. You seek to undermine what Christianity has taught for two Millennia, and for that matter was the practice of Judaism… thus all of God’s teaching work in temple, synagogue and church was a male responsibility. But somehow you have discovered that God really did not intend for that? Changing authentein to domineering has no effect on the whole of the discussion. It becomes more of a distraction, unless one wants to find a reason to plant their flag of truth on proving that a word may have been mistranslated.

          Bottom line… If husband is head, and wives are to be silent and learn from their husbands at home 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and wives are to submit to their husbands, … the list goes on… there is no way a wife can stand in authority over a husband in the pulpit and preach the word. Unless she is single, or her husband is not in attendance… and both of these things would be cause for concern in most churches.

          There is no cohesive strategy that egalitarians can take to undermine what Paul clearly was saying, and Gordon Fee makes this clear when he says, “Of course the apostle Paul intended male leadership of the church.” If you want to have any argument that is honest you must adopt the “cultural” argument. That it simply was written to a culture that is not ours.

          Have you considered that even if you were to undermine male headship and elder/teachers as men in every passage you still have zero prescription or examples of women teachers? Not one disciple, priest, king, early church Mother… not one? So if God wants women to be teachers and leaders in church, this must come from a super natural revelation that is outside of the written Word. Hence, Pentecostalism.

        2. Baldwin is but one of many who are certain that the word authentein in the context is not pejorative but leans first to “exercise authority.” So any idea that discovering authentein to mean something different cannot be proven. Do you realize that godly men who had the Spirit of God in them throughout the ages have studied this word and that the translators almost to a person all chose to go with “exercise authority?”

          https://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=271

          “Limiting his analysis to the verb authenteō,
          Baldwin concludes that “the one
          unifying concept is that of authority” and he presents the following summary table:
          1. To rule, to reign sovereignly
          2. To control, to dominate
          a. to compel, to influence someone/thing
          b. middle voice: to be in effect, to have legal standing
          c. hyperbolically: to domineer/play the tyrant
          d. to grant authorization
          3. To act independently
          a. to assume authority over
          b. to exercise one‟s own jurisdiction
          c. to flout the authority of
          4. To be primarily responsible for or to instigate something
          5. To commit murder (10th Century AD Scholia on Aeschylus21)
          Baldwin discusses in some detail the data from which each of these meanings is
          derived, making the final observation that “there appears among these data only limited
          historical development of the meaning of authenteō across fourteen centuries”
          [represented by the database].22
          d. Baldwin‟s Conclusions.
          Baldwin concludes his study by providing the following summary with respect to
          the meaning of auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:12:
          1. The root meaning involves the concept of authority.
          2. The context of 1 Timothy 2 appears to make meaning 1,
          “to rule, to reign sovereignly,” impermissible.23
          3. Meanings 2 or 2a, “to control, to dominate” or “to compel, to influence someone,” are entirely possible.
          4. Meaning 2c, “to play the tyrant,” could only correspond to Chrysostom‟s unique usage if the context could be shown to intend the same clear use of hyperbole, and the context does not seem to do that.
          5. Noting that auvqente,w is transitive, a translation of “assume authority over” (i.e., meaning 3a) could be appropriate, while 3 or 3b, which are intransitive, would not. If a negative meaning were intended, meaning 3c, “to flout the authority of,” could be possible.
          6. It is difficult to imagine how meaning 2d, “to grant authorization,” or meaning 4, “to instigate,” would make sense in 1 Timothy.
          7. Meaning 5 appears to be impermissible on
          chronological grounds.
          8. Further syntactical/contextual studies of 1 Timothy are required to decide with certainty among the meanings 2, 2a, 3a, and 3c.

          We may note here that following Baldwin‟s study in the aforementioned volume,
          Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, a study of Greek syntax by
          Andreas Köstenberger sheds more light on the meaning of authentein as it is used in 1
          Timothy 2:12. Köstenberger concludes the following based on an analysis of New
          Testament, as well as extrabiblical, examples of syntactical constructions similar to 1
          Timothy 2:12: Since, therefore, the term dida,skein is used absolutely in the New Testament for an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself, and since ouvde, coordinates terms that are either both viewed positively or negatively, auvqente,w
          should be seen as denoting an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself as well.

          Important Footnotes:
          23 In 13 instances the word reflects unhindered authority to act based on inherent or divine right (73).
          24 This meaning “reflects authority from the standpoint of actually having control or ability to dominate an object” (73).
          25 The only reference intended to convey the negative meaning “tyrannize” or domineer is the c. A.D. 390 Chrysostom quote (75).
          26 While Baldwin thinks that tenth century scholium in the Aeschylus text means murder, Huttar, in the previously cited article, has called into question this meaning even in this citation—which occurs nine hundred years removed from the New Testament and even if substantiated hardly provides credible
          evidence for this meaning. Huttar has found one other occurrence of the word in a manuscript of the 13th century (Huttar, 625; see footnote 3).
          27
          That is to say, according to Köstenberger authentein viewed within its grammatical
          context in 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be understood as having a pejorative or negative
          connotation (such as, for example, the translation “domineer” would have), but a positive one.

          1. I’ve read all this material before. I have a great deal of respect for Baldwin (I have corresponded with personally about a certain situation in ancient Ephesus), and I have a great deal of respect for Al Wolters, a scholar who, like Baldwin, holds to a patriarchal ideology.

            However, I have no idea how anyone can think that domineer can have a positive sense. Perhaps that is the biggest difference in our understanding of the New Testament.

            When I read Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels I see that he taught his follower the opposite of domineering. I believe that no believer should ever dominate or control another capable person.

          2. The Bible, Matthew 20:
            But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

  2. Hey Lori! I really admire how you have followed your convictions and have spoken plainly, doing what you feel is right. I have no doubt that your husband is feeling quite blessed! 🙂 I noticed that you often cite the instructional verses of the Apostle Paul to support these convictions. However, I was wondering if you had any blog posts on certain women of the Bible that might seem to go against the teachings of Paul, yet still were heralded for leadership in spite of their womanhood? I am so curious to know your thoughts on Deborah, Abigail, Priscilla, and Junia. Do you already have a dissertation on this somewhere? I couldn’t find it. -Blessings.

    1. Thank you, Noelle! I have written about all of these women and none of them were in leadership positions in the Church. Deborah lived during a time when Israel was in rebellion and sat as a judge, she was not living in the Church age since the Church had not been formed yet, and the OT people are not exact examples of how we are to live but simply explain the history of God’s work through the lives of His people.

      The same goes with Abigail. She wasn’t a leader in the Church since it hadn’t been formed and what she did wasn’t considered in a leadership position.

      Priscilla was a tentmaker with her husband but nowhere are we told that she was a leader in a church, preached sermons, or was an elder or deacon.

      Junia was a “kinsman” and “fellowprisoner” so I have no idea why people use him as an example of women in leadership.

      Here is another post I wrote about your question:

      https://thetransformedwife.com/reasons-women-should-be-able-to-preach/

  3. What is baffling to me is how you prefer face-value interpretations of interpretations over taking the books of Bible seriously enough to understand first what they meant in their own context before applying it mindlessly to yourself and our churches today.

    That means, yes – the language Paul used to write is more important than the language we Americans use in our translations. Secondly, the context of this letter was Paul writing to a church where a particular group of women were causing problems, and this was a problem Paul needed to address in this letter until a better plan could be put in place. We can see in other places that women did speak, and in fact in some churches were leaders, whom Paul corresponded with on behalf of the church there.

    It makes me sad to see scriptures so abused and not taken seriously in such a way that a person can just pick up any old several-degrees-removed translation, without understanding of which ancient texts they were based on, the actual language, or the context in which the letter was written in order to discern the actual meaning – and just assume they know what it means (or whomever they are listening to does). That does not honor the Word. What we do when we study these things – the language Paul used (in his own tongue) and its meaning then, as well as the context in which his letter was written – THAT is honoring the Word.

    Listening to one side of a telephone conversation (or, in this case, on side of a communication through written letters in another language and culture), REQUIRES learning and understanding in order to discern the importance then, and in turn, for churches here in THIS culture today.

    But I guess since you are a woman, by your own admission you should be silent about this among your sisters and brothers in Christ such as myself? 🙁
    I am glad you are speaking up, I just think the Bible is important enough to understand beyond our face-value interpretations of English translations of Greek manuscripts of the actual letters themselves and the contexts in which they were written, and that we should educate ourselves before doing so.

    1. Wow Cory…. you say a lot with no substantiation whatsoever. Let me take a few of your ideas, but time does not permit a complete refutation of your assertions: (Your words are in quotations).

      “What is baffling to me is how you prefer face-value interpretations of interpretations over taking the books of Bible seriously enough to understand first what they meant in their own context before applying it mindlessly to yourself and our churches today.”

      This is simply a false assertion. We take the books of the Bible in context understanding that context provides the greatest clues as to what the author intended. It seems it is you who is unwilling to deal with the immediate context of church order and leadership. Read the next chapter on appointing elders and deacons.

      “Secondly, the context of this letter was Paul writing to a church where a particular group of women were causing problems, and this was a problem Paul needed to address in this letter until a better plan could be put in place.”

      What you write is patently false. First, the book you are thinking of perhaps is 1 Cor. 11 where Paul also writes about the woman’s role in the church as to not to teach or exercise authority. There is zero mention in the context of this epistle if 1 Tim. has anything to do with women causing trouble. Please show us the evidence you have for this? And even if it were, why would this disqualify the plain teaching that exists here on the matter? Are you so keen to throw out the plain teaching for some reason with no merit whatsoever? You must admit that even if you could prove that women were causing trouble, which you cannot, that still would not change what Paul plainly is teaching his protege to teach those who he in turn will be mentoring and leading.

      Instead 1 Timothy is a letter to Paul’s protege who he expects will take over his work and instructing to him on how to be a pastor and leader. I challenge you to find any overview of 1 Timothy that asserts that Paul is addressing a context of unruly women. This is something you and others have made up.

      “We can see in other places that women did speak, and in fact in some churches were leaders, whom Paul corresponded with on behalf of the church there.”

      Again an assertion with zero proof. Show us where all these women were who were speaking in the church and in leadership. You can maybe find 1-2 to support your position at all, and then it is another argument that is from silence. We don’t know if Priscilla had any role in the church for leadership, or is Junia was male or female, or what role she may have played. Put all the women you are thinking of together and they don’t amount to any proof that even one of them was a leader in the church, or taught in a church, although they certainly did serve in the church.

      “It makes me sad to see scriptures so abused and not taken seriously in such a way that a person can just pick up any old several-degrees-removed translation, without understanding of which ancient texts they were based on, the actual language, or the context in which the letter was written in order to discern the actual meaning.”

      Yes, Cory it makes us sad too to see such poor scholarship and unwillingness to deal with the context and language. Have you taken a Greek or Hebrew class? Have you done self study in the languages especially as it relates to these passages? I have… and hence must agree with you when you write: “and just assume they know what it means (or whomever they are listening to does). That does not honor the Word. What we do when we study these things – the language Paul used (in his own tongue) and its meaning then, as well as the context in which his letter was written – THAT is honoring the Word.” Yet you seem to have failed your own values here.

      I think this line captures where you get lost: (“REQUIRES learning and understanding in order to discern the importance them, and in turn, for churches here in THIS culture today.”)

      You and others are so bent on wrestling God’s Word to fit what you believe is best for the modern church instead of allowing the Word to influence our culture. I can accept an argument that the passages Paul has given us on male leadership in the church are cultural, even if I disagree. But at least it is a plain argument from silence. But what is disconcerting is to have you and many others act like you have actually studied this issue in the original languages and context and have discovered something that 2000 years of church history could not see. This is a blatant and unsupportable lie. Then you couch it with assertion after assertion with zero support for your blowing in the wind.

      “But I guess since you are a woman, by your own admission you should be silent about this among your sisters and brothers in Christ such as myself? 🙁”

      That is a low blow… You have chosen to read and comment on a blog written by a Christian older, godly women who is following the admonition of the Word to train the young women. Understanding God’s role for them and who to listen to is an important part of that training. Lori is not outside of the Word on this matter as she is not teaching men, she is not exercising authority over men, and she is not in a church setting. It would be the same as saying a woman who wrote a book is preaching. No one has ever thought reading a book or blog is being preached to, as you claim.

      I do hope you will go back and heed your last admonition as it is true, but also be willing to place the highest value on the plain teaching of the Word.

      “I am glad you are speaking up, I just think the Bible is important enough to understand beyond our face-value interpretations of English translations of Greek manuscripts of the actual letters themselves and the contexts in which they were written, and that we should educate ourselves before doing so.”

      If we start throwing out the plain teaching we have nothing but your opinion and mine… and the wishful assertions that try to get around the plain teaching. Remember, even if you want to say that Paul’s writing on the matter is cultural… you must deal with the fact that Paul went well beyond culture in his argument as to why women are to remain silent and not exercise authority over men when he appeals to the creation story. That story is unchangeable and has nothing to do with loud or unruly women in the church.

      “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:11). That is the context that sets up the rest of the passage.

  4. Perhaps you should read Fee on this. His is a scholarly take; it would be more difficult to so flippantly dismiss his arguments.

    1. Paul,

      Please provide a link to Fee and we will be happy to review what he has to say. I don’t see Lori being flippant here but I do see many others playing games trying to get around what is clearly taught multiple times in the scriptures.

      How can it be flippant to teach what the church has held for 2000 years? See my comments to Cory above.

    2. Paul I investigated Gordon Fee and tried to understand the basis of his argument for women in ministry. It seems that he does have what I would consider the only argument that one can assert that the cultural context does not apply to today.

      This is a dangerous argument and an argument from silence. Certainly what Paul was writing the words would have applied to Greek culture, Jewish culture and every culture that existed up to that time. So it was not just Greek culture that had male leadership of the home, but generally all households and rulerships with the exception of widows were male led. And this continued until the modern day of feminism, where now because feminism is the norm in our culture the Word as written no longer applies?

      What makes this teaching and thinking so wrong and dangerous is that as culture shifts to homosexuality, abortion and a myriad of other social ills, are we to excuse them all as cultural? That our society has found a better way that now the Bible needs to catch up with because, after all, God is love?

      The cultural argument is one that no one can verify or argue against for those who want to believe it. God does not say it is cultural anywhere in His Word, but rather appeals to the creation story in the defense of why women are not to lead the men.

      For those who want to see what they want to see we can do nothing. We can only teach those who want to hold to a strong authority of the Word without copping out to an argument that cannot be found in the Word itself. But there is no argument in the Word for women in leadership in the church, only admonitions and commands against it. But at least there is a small amount of honesty in Fee’s position as he is not trying to twist the scriptures to prove what cannot be proven by them. Even as it fails the integrity of God’s Word.

  5. I wonder what “teaching” involved in Paul’s day, before the written New Testament. Would that time still have been part of the Apostolic era? Now that we have the written Bible, the authority is in God’s Word, isn’t it?

    1. Hi Victoria,

      The teaching would have been the oral tradition of Christ and His apostles. They would have handed down what they had learned to the Pastor/Teachers in the church, and some of this newly minted oral tradition like Christ’s words may have been written onto scrolls at the time. They also would have all of the written Old Testament to teach from and show how it relates to the Church age.

      One of the reasons Paul wanted to get back to Jerusalem early in his ministry was to confirm with the church leaders that what he was teaching was accurate as handed to him, along with sharing his teaching to the Gentiles that they did not have to follow the old Jewish customs. How much fun that would have been to spend those days with the apostles in a room talking about theology! It is that theology and the person and work of Christ that was being faithfully passed along from church to church by faithful teachers… true to the Word.

      1. That seems to me to be a little different than someone today helping other people understand a paragraph in the Bible. Isn’t one of the main themes of 1 Timothy to guard against people eager to teach but not yet having been taught the apostles’ doctrine?

        1. The only difference would be that prior to having the written word to be the authority, the authority to teach God’s word came from who taught you it before you passed it along. Paul appointed elders and admonished Timothy to do the same of men who could be pastor/teachers.

          The opening of the epistle of 1 Timothy is warning to protect the church from false doctrine. Hence the need for proper elder authority in the church to combat against it.

  6. Ken:

    Better than just a link to Fee:

    This list was my response (including many people’s suggestions) to a request for names of books, etc., [from conservative Christians] that make a biblical case for egalitarianism (i.e., that women can serve and function in the church in any office or capacity or gifting that men can):

    * = Is or can be academic in whole or in part

    1. Thank you EWeiss for the links, and I will look at Fee if he is in the links tonight. We have studied this issue in depth and side with the plain reading of God’s Word along with 2000 years of church history. I doubt there is much to learn from the gymnastics necessary to wrestle these passages on on women’s roles in church leadership. But there is lots of creative thinking applied in the name of scholarship to try to make the Bible fit one’s world view, instead of allowing the Bible to inform one’s views. A lot of “what ifs” with zero basis of proof so that the modern church can fit in with feminism.

  7. I appreciate that you have engaged with my work. The post you are referring to is one of many on 1 Timothy 2, and I can assure you there is no watering down or dismissing of the biblical texts as you are assuming. A study of the original manuscripts of Paul’s letters will show that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So my contention it is strange that some modern versions translate “authentein” simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. The founder of my denomination, BT Roberts, wrote his book, Ordaining Women, in 1890. Our position is not related in anyway to modern feminism. Readers interested in serious study of this passage might appreciate this series of posts: http://margmowczko.com/tag/1-timothy-212-in-context/

    1. Hi Gail,

      I have explained clearly in my post why I disagree with you so I don’t feel the need to explain anymore but my husband, Ken, who graduated from Talbot Seminary will respond to your comment.

      1. I was not asking for an explanation, just wanting to give your readers a way to more fairly evaluate the egalitarian interpretation, especially as you felt free to write about me in such an insulting way.

        1. Many criticize and insult me about what I write every day and if it’s incorrect, I simply ignore it, but as a public writer, you know as well as I do that we are open to criticism and I completely disagree with your watering down of God’s perfect Word.

    2. Hi Gail,

      I am curious why the focus on the one word “authentein” as the apostle could have completely left the word out of the sentence and achieved basically the same meaning:

      “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

      How does a woman exercise authority as a pastor for instance if she not permitted to teach a man and if she is primarily to remain silent in the church? As you know this is not the only place that God’s Word says this.

      And what could the apostle Paul be referring to with his justification if it is not some form of authority when the next sentence he says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” What does this mean if Adam (man) was not to lead?

      It is an impossible task to wrestle the scriptures to have them not clearly instruct male church leadership and teaching. I know that many are trying to do it, and having walked away from the plain teaching of the context and language here, they have found new personal creative insights that are nothing more than wishful thinking and unsubstantiated “what ifs.”

      Can we not agree that taken as a whole, the position on male leadership in the church has far greater support than any idea that God or Paul wanted female leadership in the church? To say that Paul and God’s Word allows women into church authority and to teach men is such a long stretch making it wearisome trying to believe God communicates to us this way. How many other things are unclear from this God who can’t get his church to get it right for 2000 years? When the weight of evidence is 99% against a position it is time to surrender it.

      1. Ken, we are not going to agree and certainly this won’t be resolved in the comments section of a blog. As you are well aware, having gone to Talbot, there are credible biblical scholars who hold to both the egalitarian and complementarian positions – even at Talbot. My purpose in commenting was not to argue, but to push back against the incomplete and disparaging way that my views were presented. Blessings on your ministry.

        1. Although somewhat linked, our argument here is not about the egalitarian and complementarian positions, but rather the issue of women teaching and exercising authority in the church. There are many who hold to an egalitarian position and still would not force this passage into a thought it does not create.

          The Greek department at Talbot would not allow a misunderstanding of what is plain in this passage. Besides, even if we could get rid of this passage completely and the others telling women to be silent and not teach men, there still would be no foundation scriptural or historically for women preacher/teachers, or as elders. Getting rid of a prohibition does not then give a green light to usurp eldership, which was clearly all male and only addressed to men.

          Is it not possible Gail that Peter address such things when he writes specifically about Paul’s words: “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15, 16). There is no reason to twist what is already plain speaking on this matter.

      2. How much of the pastor’s role today involves wielding authority? Wouldn’t the buck-stops-here of a healthy church be the elders? Maybe Paul sees pastor as a spiritual gift, the role being to equip believers for ministry. There are lots of pastor-run churches, but wouldn’t that be unsafe and too focused on the person (rather than emphasizing God’s Word and shared leadership)? Thanks for pondering with me.

        1. Hi Victoria,

          I am not sure I would differentiate at all between a pastor and the elders. Both are “shepherding” the flock of God which is what the word pastor means. You can have pastors who are not also elders, so ultimately the authority of the church rests with the elders.

          There is quite a bit of authority that must be exercised in the church. Decisions must be made at every level, but especially doctrinally, and how the church will advance the Kingdom. In cases of member disputes, or marriage issues, or issues involving a pastor or church worker, the elders must make the final decisions.

          Beyond this, remember that much of one’s leadership does not come from exercising authority but by modeling Christlike behavior and depending on the members to follow willfully the authority the Lord has designed. Imagine what churches might look like if no authority was established for the church. Any faction could challenge its direction, doctrine and daily operations on a regular basis creating chaos in the church. Thus the final authority of the elders is to ask those who are contentious to leave the church.

          So I heartily agree with you that if a head Pastor is the final authority in a church it is not a Biblical structure as God asks it to be a plurality of elders.

  8. Hi, Lori! Looks like you got some push-back, so I just want to encourage you that you are spot on with your post. Keep teaching those unpopular truths – the modern church needs to hear them!

    1. Thanks, Diana! It’s a lot easier to teach the simple truths of the Word because then there doesn’t need to be any gymnastics with truth to try and make it say what we want it to say instead of believing it just as it is perfectly written.

  9. I just want to leave a question to ponder here. If Timothy were only writing to a specific church with a specific problem of unruly women, why would God Himself take great pains to preserve this Word along with the rest of the Scriptures for thousands of years so that we might read it today? Is all Scripture suddenly not for teaching and reproof? Is there a comprehensive list of all the other directives given in the New Testament that I no longer need to heed because they aren’t culturally relevant? I think we’ve found ourselves not only on a slippery slope, but it just doesn’t make sense with the character of our loving, never-changing God who inspired His Word exactly as He wanted it.

    1. Dalrock writes some very good posts and I know he agrees with wives living in submission to their husbands. In order for women to twist the Scriptures to mean what they want them to mean, they have to find ways to undo the clearly taught principles in Scriptures since there isn’t one single verse that commands men to submit to their wives or for women to be in leadership positions in the church or teach men. So they go to the “Greek meaning” or vague examples in the Bible to try and prove their erroneous points.

  10. Lori, I just wished to say that I appreciate your thoughtful posts. It saddens me deeply that some are so determined to have their own way that they twist or water down God’s word, which is very clear on this topic especially. It seems to me that it’s far better to err on the side of silence than to possibly disobey & offend God. At first it may seem harsh or difficult, but once we submit to God’s will…it is truly so freeing! I can’t fully explain it, but it’s true.

    Lauren makes an excellent point, too, about these very portions of Scripture being preserved throughout the centuries.

    Finally…I feel a little better to read of your apparent discomfort with women as worship leaders. In recent years this has made me increasingly uncomfortable, too, though I’m not entirely sure it is fully wrong. Again, the ‘not sure’ leaves me on the ‘avoid’ end of the scale. This is an extremely unpopular thought, though.

    1. Thank you, Jen! Michelle Lesley wrote a post about men as worship leaders and I agree with her completely. Maybe it will help form your conviction more thoroughly!

      “4. Should women be worship leaders (lead the congregational music)?

      (Let me just take a moment to say that my husband has been a minister of music for about thirty years, so I do have some experience in this area.)

      No, women should not serve as the worship leader. The primary reason I say this has more to do with the position of minister of music – a term I think we need to get back to – than the role of women in the church.

      Overseeing the music ministry of the church, selecting music for worship and the teaching of biblical truths, being in charge of half of the worship service, and leading the congregation in worship is not some inconsequential thing that can be shuffled off to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to have a nice voice. It is a pastoral role. As the pastor shepherds the congregation through the exhortation of the preached Word, the minister of music shepherds the congregation through the worship, praise, declaration, and imploring of the words we sing. Preaching is when God speaks to us. Singing is when we speak to God. And we need a pastor to teach and lead us to do that biblically.

      By biblical definition, women are not to be pastors or hold that kind of functional authority over men in the church. Therefore, women should not hold the position of minister of music or “worship leader” (singing in the choir or on the praise team, singing solos, playing an instrument, etc., under the leadership of the minister of music, is, of course, fine). By the same token, men who do not meet the biblical qualifications of pastor or elder should also not hold the position of minister of music. Placing biblically unqualified people in pastoral positions is not only disobedient to Scripture, it exposes the church’s low view of, and lack of reverence for the lofty act of worship.”

      https://michellelesleybooks.com/2017/09/11/the-mailbag-should-women-give-testimonies-and-reports-lead-prayer-and-worship-in-church/

  11. I’m with Gail.

    No one I know suggests that women, or men for that matter, do what Paul disallows in 1 Timothy 2:12, which has nothing to do pulpits and Sunday sermons.
    http://margmowczko.com/category/equality-and-gender-issues/1-timothy-212/

    Women, as well as men participated in church meetings in the first century. Women prayed and prophesied aloud. They were not silent.

    All of Paul’s calls for silence or quietness, from men and from women, are in regards to bad behaviour.

    1. I’m with the Lord and His perfect ways which are contrary to Gail’s! “All of Paul’s calls for silence or quietness, from men and from women, are in regards to bad behaviour.” There is not one command in the entire Bible that instructs men to be quiet in the church, neither is there any reference concerning bad behavior. Instead of believing what the Word clearly states, you twist them to mean something entirely different than what the Apostle Paul meant. This is a dangerous practice, Marg.

      1. I am curious Marg where this idea of women with bad behavior in a particular comes from as I have never seen it in my study of the word. I am also curious as to how the 1st century church’s problem of women having bad behavior could warrant Paul’s defense of his admonition “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” with his argument:

        “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Tim 2:12-14). What in the world could he have been referencing here concerning bad behavior? That men have less bad behavior because Adam was created first? and women are more easily deceived so they need to be quiet in this particular church but not in all others?

        For that matter we know that the epistle of Timothy is not directed to a church but to a protege and disciple of Paul who would be instructing multiple pastors and churches. Was this bad behavior problem of wanting to be in control, and usurp the authority of the elders, common in the churches Timothy was to pastor, but no longer common in the modern church?

        It seems that the bad behavior may still be common today and require the same prescription that only God’s timeless Word can give. Even elder boards are now too commonly controlled by women in many churches.

        1. Hi Ken,
          The idea of bad behaviour comes from the word authentein (from the verb authenteo) used in 1 Timothy 2:12. It means “to coerce” or “to bully”.
          http://margmowczko.com/authentein-1-timothy2_12/
          The idea also comes from looking at Paul’s three calls for silence in 1 Corinthians 14.

          Hi Lori,
          “Being with Gail” is not mutually exclusive of being with the Lord. In fact I know Gail because our mutual faith in the Lord. We are both devoted to God and to understanding and obeying his Word.

          1. Hi Lori,

            I appreciate your concern.
            My information on the meaning of authentein (from the verb authenteo) is based on its usage in actual ancient papyri written around the same time at 1 Timothy. And this information can be verified.

            The people who wrote the Bible commentaries you’ve linked to did not have access to these ancient Greek papyri. And it is unclear what they base their translation/interpretation on.

            Even though we may disagree with Paul’s intent and meaning in 1 Timothy 2:12 and surrounding verses, I am certainly not saying any person, a woman included, should have *dominion* over another capable, law-abiding person. We are to have dominion over the earth and not each other. (I use the word “dominion” because that is a word used in one the commentaries you linked to.) And no one should usurp the authority of another person.

            I’m not sure what you mean by reconsider my position. My understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 in no way counts as a “position”. There are genuine hermeneutical challenges in the Greek of this verse and surrounding verses, and these must all be factored into any interpretation.
            http://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-not-as-clear/

          2. I think what Lori is saying about “position” is the overall position of allowing women to teach men the Word or exercise authority in the church. We certainly can be brothers and sisters in Christ and disagree about the translation of a word “authentein” which like most words can have variations in meaning. One can be a Christian and hold to a “cultural” view of all that Paul and Peter write concerning male leadership of the home and church, but it is a dangerous position in that it has no Biblical support. If God wants women teacher/preachers it can only come from new revelation as the revelation giving in the Word does not permit it. Somehow God in all His providence held back this mystery until now, the day of feminism? It is certainly not strong footing to be out on the limb of personal revelation and it gives no comfort to the church that desires to be faithful to the Word in everything.

          3. The overall message of the Bible is that a godly, capable woman may teach or lead a man.
            I maintain that what is being disallowed in 1 Tim 2:12 is the bad or inappropriate behaviour of a woman, and that domineering is unacceptable whether by a man or a woman.

            It is unwise to let an interpretation of one Bible verse (especially a verse with genuine hermeneutical challenges in the Greek) override what other Bible passages and precedents tell us.

            I appreciate that you, Lori and Ken, have a different interpretation than myself and others, but that doesn’t mean that we are disrespecting or twisting the scriptures. To faithfully understand the scriptures is my passion. And I wish you the best as you also search out the scriptures.

            Here’s a list of Bible men who were guided, led and taught by women: http://margmowczko.com/created-order-1-timothy-212/

  12. Hmm, after reading all these comment on this forum, it’s pretty disturbing..women are not allowed to teach, or have any authority over a man. When the scripture speaks about women keeping silent in the church, this is saying that she is not to ask any questions out loud, but she must ask her husband the questions. Women are allowed to evangelize and tell a man the Gospel, because she is not ruling over him. If the man in turn has questions then she is to turn it over to her husband and he will answer the questions. Women are not called to be pastors, elders,,leaders etc. No real man is going to sit under the authority of women. It doesn’t matter how many seminary’s a person goes to (male or female). If your seminary school is teaching false things that is clearly against scripture then run from these seminarys and stick to the bible the kjv. Not niv, nlt,esv or the newest one T.a.b.o.c..the abominable book of contradictions….lol j/k. But please people just stick to the scripture and you will be fine. Shalom!

    1. I believe that the passage about women being silent in the church is more than just not asking their husbands questions at home but about teaching and being in authority over men. I don’t believe women are allowed to “evangelize” in the church since women today would take this as being able to preach in church but I’m not sure if you meant this either. Yes, of course, we share the gospel with those in our life of normal day-to-day contact but this ministry is given to men in the churches.

    2. Well said submissive :). I think some real men may indeed sit under the authority of a woman out of ignorance to the Word, or because the Word is so distorted today. When we get into this topic discussions over the years we see what a deeper and larger web the Christian egalitarians have created, attacking every verse Greek Word by Greek Word positing “what ifs” in an attempt to undermine what is so clearly written in multiple places by God for His Church.

      I wonder if they ever have considered that even if you undermine every single spot where male leadership is taught in the New Testament, you still have the entire Old Testament model to deal with.

      If you could wipe out the whole male leadership of Priests and Kings in the OT you would still have to deal with one last impossible hurdle… Neither Christ nor the disciples ever assigned or advocated one female for leadership.

      My God is quite clear on what He wants from mankind and His church, and to leave such an important issue completely unsupported by His Word has to make the thoughtful person conclude that he indeed wants Christ to be head of all and husband to be head of family… just as He plain said it.

  13. Oh brother. 😩 Lori, i appreciate your thoughts. I will certainly chew on both sides of the equation and discuss it with my husband. I think it is our duty as believers to call out anybody who may be a false teacher. But not without much thought and prayer and checking our own motives. And of course someone would feel offended if they were exposed. But i think we all need to be concerned with staying true to scripture. 😊

    1. My only motive is to seek out the truth and teach it as it concerns women’s roles in and out of the church. The Lord takes false teachers seriously and so do I since they lead many astray, especially those who are unlearned in the Word of God. I want as many women as possible to know the truth of God’s Word as the days become shorter and closer to Christ’s return.

  14. At face value, Im with Lori here. In one word i was swayed to Lori’s argument. And thats when the word ‘equality’ was used. Its being thrown around a lot these days. And nothing or at least very little good is ever attached to it. But as i commented before. I will speak to my head about it. 😊 God bless.

    1. “Equality” is a good word as far as men and women being of equal value to the Lord. Our roles may be different, but we are of equal importance.

      I’ve heard of people hating Christianity because they think that Christians believe women are inferior, or less than men in the eyes of God (because Christians don’t like the word “equality”) but this is so untrue! God created men and women to be of equal importance. Sure, He gave us different roles, but women are no less important to the Lord than men are!

  15. I thank you Lori for speaking truth! I come to your blog everyday for your teachings, as I have no Godly older woman in my life to teach me these things.

  16. Thank you Lori for being bold enough to teach the truth! I cannot wait to read your blog each morning. Through your blog and much Bible study/prayer, I have allowed the Lord to speak to me about being a career woman. I am now down to working 1 day per week. Im a work in progress, looking forward to being a homemaker soon. Don’t let these comments discourage you! The Lord is using you and I thank you for allowing Him to!! I have always been taught Scripture the same way as you have. Keep stepping on toes, its working!!!

    1. Congratulations, Leslie! You are heading right where the Lord wants you to be and there’s no better place to be.

      These comments don’t discourage me in the least. I try to keep true to God’s Word and by doing this I know that I will be attacked but that’s okay. I am promised in the Word about this. They hated our Lord, so they will hate us.

  17. Ken & Lori,

    If they actually looked at church history, they would see that the apostles taught to men. Yes, they read the letters to the church, and women had higher value in christianity as they do today, but if you look at the Jews first and their conversion you see that men had the authority in that religion. As the authority in the home and church meetings the men then taught their families the deeper meanings at home relating to the prophecies of Jesus in the OT. The men were taught the OT, not the women. The roles were not much different in the Gentiles. In fact, the Gentiles treated the women worse. As the Gentiles learned morals and Jesus’ teachings they valued women more, but understood they were the responsible ones for their wives and families.

    When Constantine converted Rome to Christianity the philosophizers learned the Word and became the “priests” up on stage. If you recall they were entertainers on stage. They were well equiped to become Catholic Priests. People could just listen and be, and not actually learn it and live it.

    If you read about the early church, they were chased out of Rome and all over Europe and were persecuted. They taught in homes and barns and were pursued by the RCC.

    The reformation caused Protestantism to basically follow suit with and entertainer on stage, but was not a “priest”. Just as Paul was angered at those worshiping apostles instead of God, this occured with RCC priests and money, and then on to protestant pastors.

    Those who truly want to practice what they practiced in Antioch, they would meet to fellowship and share the Word, but the husbands would teach the wives and children. This would eliminate the “priest” on stage who should be doing very little teaching and those he teaches would be mostly men and the women would ask their husbands/fathers at home. Wow! What a concept! Pastors would encourage husbands to learn the word, encourage wives to submit.

    The need for a false feminist preacher would be eliminated and there wouldn’t be an argument.

    1. Good thoughts Jeff. It is true that if the structure of the church itself went back to homes and smaller home churches as was the NT model, the women as teacher/preacher would then much more glaringly usurp the role of her husband. This would still not dissuade them as when you boil it all down, their real claim is that male headship in the home and church is a “cultural” norm for Judaism and the Greeks, but not for we Americans in our modern culture.

      They believe we are to get with the times, wipe away all the passages concerning male authority with the brush that is was “cultural” and rely more on the concept that we are equal joint heirs with Christ and brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. We should all be striving to serving and sacrifice for others , putting others ahead of ourselves, hence no need for any one type of person to lead. Just give it the best leader.

      All this creative postulation has no support from the Word. but it does fit the model they are trying to create. Who needs to deal with the plain teaching of God’s Word when you can wipe it out as “cultural?” :{.

      Now do you see how same sex marriage enters the church and abortion and other things? Our culture knows best and it is time the Word and God and Christians catch up with it. “And everyone did what was right in their own eyes was cultural too…”

  18. Dear Lori,
    It seems to me that more care and caution is appropriate when an argument is being made against women’s leadership in the church, especially when the argument is largely based on the translation of a word from the ancient Greek language (“authentein”) found only in that one instance in the entire New Testament. In this day and time it is clear that God IS using the spiritual gifts of women in the church for leadership. Just as it says in Acts 2:17, “In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy…” How is it that you can say what God’s Holy Spirit may do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *