Finding the Big Points: What Really Matters in the Biblical Equality Debate

To be clear, I do not question the sincerity of what complementarian brothers and sisters believe. What I’m challenging is its accuracy as a faithful reflection of what Scripture actually says.

Complementarian teachers agree with mutualists that women are humans who are made in God’s image, as men are. Nonetheless, they say that men should benevolently rule women, or should lead women, or should exercise authority over women, or should take decisions for women.

They don’t rely on the primary traditional reason for men’s leadership. It’s no longer because women are inferior in their nature. But they say that God has allocated different “roles” to men and women – in marriage, in the church and perhaps in wider society.

We’ll run through the ten points where we compare the complementarian view with what Scripture says.

But before we do that, let’s notice that the word “role” doesn’t appear in the Bible.

When it was accepted that the Church’s traditional majority view of women was wrong, complementarians came up with a new justification for putting women under men’s leadership, using the sociological language of “roles”.

This idea of men’s and women’s “roles” was a twentieth-century invention. You won’t find any mention of it in biblical commentary from the first century to the nineteenth. But in the 1991 printing of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood the term “role” is used more than 700 times.

Since God has given women the same moral and intellectual qualities as men, and has given gifts of leadership to women, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for the supposed allocation of “roles”, but that allocation is what they teach.

1) Genesis 2 and 3

According to complementarian scholars, Genesis chapters 2 and 3 show that God has appointed men to give benevolent leadership to women or to their wives. They claim to find “hints” of male leadership in those chapters.

Reading through the literature, I’ve found 13 points which various scholars have argued are hints of male leadership in those two chapters.

To give one example: woman is created by God as man’s “helper”. This is said to be a hint which implies male leadership.

Now if Genesis had been originally written in English, we might see an implication there. We mostly use the word “helper” to mean a junior assistant.

But the book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. The word for “helper” is ezer. In Hebrew, God is often said to be Israel’s ezer. But that is not a hint that God has appointed Israel to be God’s leader! The supposed implication from the word ezer is not present in the Hebrew language.

We could usefully run through all 13 of the supposed hints and see why they are problematic. But the big point is something different, and much simpler.

The big point is this: supposed hints are not enough.

If someone is going to say that men have a God-given duty to lead women, then we are entitled to ask: Where is this commanded to men? Where is it stated to men that this is their God-given duty?

There is no such command to men or statement of men’s duty in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3. That is an addition to Scripture.

2) Old Testament generally

According to complementarian scholars, the Old Testament shows that God has reserved leadership to men. They refer to male kings and male priests.

We could usefully discuss why their arguments from kings and priests are not valid.

But the big point about the Old Testament is simply that leadership is not in fact reserved to men. We’ve already noted the similarity of Deborah to Moses and to Samuel. God’s choice of Deborah as leader of his people stands against the idea that God has reserved leadership to men. That rule is added to the Old Testament; it isn’t there.

And in case anyone raises it . . . No – there’s no indication in the text that it’s somehow God’s judgment on Israel to raise up for them a successful woman leader, under whom the land had peace for 40 years. Neither God nor the people express any reservation about having Deborah as the leader.

3) Jesus

We could usefully discuss how Jesus treated women, and the competing theories about why Jesus chose 12 male apostles. But the big point in the Gospels consists of two facts about Jesus’s teaching.

Fact 1: Jesus deliberately gave his disciples many enduring commands which would be important for future generations.

The Great Commission requires future disciples to make new disciples, “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). So, to be faithful disciples, we must pay close attention to what Jesus commanded.

Fact 2: The enduring commands, which Jesus gave, included commands about leadership, about marriage, and about discipleship. But he deliberately did not give any command about leadership being exclusively male, whether in the church, in marriage, or anywhere else.

Complementarians believe it is important for men to lead, at least in marriage and in the church. But it appears Jesus, our leader and Lord, did not have such a belief. If it was important, he would have taught it. He did not.

4) 1 Corinthians 7

We could usefully discuss how the whole chapter shows Paul’s view of the complete equality of relations between men and women. But for the big point, we focus just on verse 5, where Paul instructs Christian couples how to take decisions about sexual intercourse and about spending time praying together – by mutual consent.

Complementarians have to say that this instruction is a special exception to the husband’s leadership and the husband’s decision-making responsibility.

But the idea of a special exception makes no sense. These are important matters – even central matters. Sexual intercourse is the physical intimacy that makes marriage different from all other relationships. Praying together is the spiritual heart of a marriage. If decisions should be taken by mutual consent in those central physical and spiritual matters, how does it make any sense to argue that the husband is somehow supposed to be the leader and decision-maker in other, less important aspects of the marriage relationship?

No viable answer can be given.

In 1988 the complementarian position was carefully codified in the Danvers Statement, which was signed by many well-known pastors and theologians. But at this point, the Danvers Statement just gives up. It doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of this major passage of Scripture.

5) Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3

There are all sorts of interesting things we could usefully discuss in Ephesians 5 and in 1 Peter 3. We could discuss the competing views on what Paul means by his “head” metaphor in Ephesians 5:23. We could discuss the different explanations of Peter’s reference to Sarah calling Abraham “lord”, which she said quietly to herself, in a muttered laugh of disbelief (1 Peter 3:6; Genesis 18:12). But the big point does not require us to consider what Paul meant by “head”, or to interpret the details of Peter’s reasoning. That’s because the big point is not about what Paul and Peter say; it’s about what they do not say.

We can look through Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 to search for an instruction to husbands that they should rule their wives, or that they should lead them, or that they should exercise authority over them, or that they should make decisions for them. But we will not find it, because no such instructions exist.

Paul tells husbands to love their wives. He says it three times. Peter tells husbands to live considerately with their wives, and to honour them. But neither of the apostles gives to men the instructions which complementarians give.

The Danvers Statement presents the supposed duty of men to lead their wives as very important. It claims that neglecting or denying their duty of leadership will lead to destructive consequences in families (Danvers Statement, Affirmation 10). But it is not legitimate to invent a command of God and say that it is very important for men to obey it.

When complementarians say God requires that husbands should rule their wives, or lead them, or exercise authority over them, or make decisions for them, they are adding a tradition of men to the word of God.

6) New Testament ministries of women

When discussing the ministries of women in the New Testament, the general approach of complementarian interpreters is to downgrade or minimise what the women did.

There would be much we could usefully discuss about the weakness of their interpretations. But the clearest big point is the difficulty that they have with the example of Priscilla teaching Apollos in Acts chapter 18.

They say: oh, that was just a private conversation about theology between some random believers. But if we pay attention to the context, that won’t do.

If you’ve read the story, you’ll know what happens.

A church-planting team of three people arrives in Ephesus – Paul, Priscilla and Aquila. Paul is able to share the gospel in the synagogue, and gets positive responses from Jews there. They want him to stay and continue teaching, but he decides to go travelling.

So, when he goes travelling, who does he leave there, to care for the new group of believers? It has to be Priscilla and Aquila. They are the two members of the team who remain.

When Apollos arrives, Priscilla and Aquila hear him speak, and are concerned. Though he is learned, and a powerful speaker, Apollos needs to understand the way of God more accurately. So Priscilla and Aquila take him aside and teach him.

Commentators in the early centuries well understood that Priscilla’s name is put first, before her husband’s, because she was the chief teacher (for example, Chrysostom, Homily 30 on Romans; Chrysostom, First Homily on Priscilla and Aquila).

Now, why should the powerful Apollos listen to Priscilla and Aquila or take any notice of them – especially since the chief teacher is a woman? Because they are Paul’s co-workers, whom he left there, to teach and care for the new believers.

When they correct Apollos, that isn’t just a private conversation between random believers. As the remaining members of the team, responsible for shepherding the new believers, they exercise their authority to correct him.

Luke includes this story to show how Paul extended his ministry through the male and female co-workers that he trained up. It illustrates the method that Paul describes to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:2 (NIV):

“The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others”.

7) 1 Corinthians 11

First Corinthians 11:2–16 is the difficult passage about hairstyles or head-coverings.

Paul gives some corrective instructions for both men and women, when they are leading the congregation by prophesying or by praying aloud. The Corinthians knew what went on in Corinth and what was going on in their churches, so they wouldn’t have found his instructions hard to understand. But for us it is more difficult. There’s a lot of debate about the background.

Complementarians use this passage in their headship theology. They assign a controversial interpretation to Paul’s head metaphor in verse 3, and they add words to verse 10 and make it say the opposite of what it actually says.

In my new book, with a lot of help from Phil Payne, I offer a reading in which everything falls into place, and I list eight respects in which complementarian interpretations of this passage are in conflict with Paul’s actual words.

But we don’t need to go into any of that here, because the big point, again, is very simple. However one interprets the passage, the plain and undeniable fact is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul places no limit on the scope of women’s ministries.

He affirms women prophesying to both men and women. He affirms women praying aloud in the presence of both men and women. He does not prohibit women from preaching, or from teaching men, or from pastoring or leading a church, or from any other ministry activity.

The complementarian restrictions on women’s ministry are absent from this passage.

8) 1 Corinthians 14:34–35

These verses say three times, in three different ways, that women in the church must be completely silent.

Here’s the NIV of verses 34–35:

1. Women should remain silent in the churches.
2. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
3. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

(Of course, “church” doesn’t mean a building; it means the gathered congregation of those who follow Jesus.)

The most notable feature of these words is that they do not state Paul’s own view.

Paul has been teaching in chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 about how to regulate men’s and women’s vocal contributions in the gathered church, in accordance with their spiritual gifts, so that their contributions are honourable, and loving, and orderly. Women cannot make vocal contributions in accordance with their gifts if they are not allowed to speak!

Most complementarian interpreters freely accept that Paul cannot mean what these verses actually say: that women in the church must be silent and not speak.

The leading complementarian theory is that Paul only means here to forbid one particular kind of speech by women – the judging or evaluation of prophecies, which they say would contradict “male headship”. But that theory is not viable. It is in conflict with the plain words, which are emphatic and unqualified.

If the no-judging-of-prophecies theory were correct:–

• Paul misleads his listeners by plainly stating a total ban on all kinds of women’s speaking, when supposedly he only means to ban women from judging prophecies.
• He misleads his listeners some more, by repeating the total ban three times, for maximum emphasis.
• He misleads them by plainly saying that the ban on speaking applies when women are in the church, even though, supposedly, he only means it to apply when prophecies are being judged.
• He irrationally includes, as his only specific example of the application of the ban, the asking of questions out of a desire to learn, which is a different activity from the one that he supposedly means to ban.
• He contradicts what he has just said in verse 29 about who should evaluate prophecies. In v29 he says “the others” should weigh what is said – that is, the other prophets should weigh the prophecy. The “others” are both men and women.
• Indeed, he contradicts the whole thrust of his teaching in chapters 11 to 14, which is that every member should contribute in the church in accordance with their spiritual gifts – which means that women with speaking gifts should use them, and should not remain silent.

The rule that women must not judge prophecies is not there in the text.

Here’s the big point: looking at what those two verses plainly say, we can be confident that those two verses do not state Paul’s own view.

There are just two realistic possibilities for understanding what is going on here.

The first realistic possibility is that he is quoting a particular group of opponents, in order to disagree with them in what he says next (in verses 36 to 40).

The second realistic possibility is that the two verses are a later addition, which came about because a comment written into the margin in an early copy got added into the main text when the letter was copied again. There are other examples of that happening in the New Testament manuscripts.

Because of the particular features of the manuscript evidence, which have to be explained, I believe the second theory is probably correct – the later addition theory.

The Danvers Statement wisely places no reliance on these two verses. That is a wise reticence, for no one has found a satisfactory way of reading them as stating Paul’s own view. That is because those verses do not state Paul’s own view.

9) 1 Timothy 2

In 1 Timothy, Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus, with instructions about dealing with false teaching and the fall-out from it.

The favourite English version of the Bible for complementarians is the ESV. In the ESV, 1 Timothy 2:12 says:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

This verse is massively important in complementarian thinking, as justifying general restrictions on the ministries of women.

The next two verses – verses 13 and 14 – mention Adam and Eve. Complementarian interpretations of verse 12 understand Paul to be stating a general rule of conduct – a rule which is based on God’s will as revealed in Genesis, in the story of Adam and Eve. They believe Paul is referring to a creation principle of male-over-female authority.

There is an important debate over whether Paul is really referring here to a creation principle or whether, in fact, he refers to the story of Adam and Eve to prompt Timothy to use it as an illustration of the danger of a deceived woman teaching a man.

There’s also an important debate about whether “exercise authority” is a correct translation. In my view, a better translation would be “overpower” or “overmaster”.

There’s also an important debate about the singular “woman” in verses 11 and 12. Is this a particular individual in Ephesus, whom Paul doesn’t want to name, or is he making some kind of generic statement? If he’s making a generic statement, who are the women who constitute the genus? Is it all women, or is it some particular rich women that he has just been talking about in verses 9 and 10?

There’s also an important debate about why the word “man” is in the singular in verse 12. Complementarians say it is OK for a woman to teach a man, as Priscilla did, but that women shouldn’t teach groups of men – which isn’t what Paul says.

But for present purposes, our big point is in the short phrase in verse 12: “I do not permit”.

In Greek, that’s just two words: ouk epitrepō, which could be translated either as “I do not permit” or as “I am not permitting”, depending on context.

I think “I am not permitting” fits the context better, but let’s stick with the ESV “I do not permit”.

This little phrase, “I do not permit” or ouk epitrepō sets up an insuperable roadblock to the complementarian interpretation. That is because Paul’s phrase is a conspicuous indication that he is not stating a general rule based on obedience to God’s revealed will.

Let me explain.

According to complementarian male-headship theology, Paul is saying it is wrong for a woman to exercise authority over a man (v. 12) because God created Adam before Eve (v. 13), and this sequence of creation is taken to imply that, by God’s design, it is wrong for women to have authority over men. It follows that to violate God’s creation design of male-over-female authority is to disobey God’s revealed will for men and women.

To disobey God’s revealed will is sin. To do so knowingly is rebellion against God. Accordingly, the Danvers Statement says that it is sinful for women to “resist limitations on their roles” (Danvers Statement, Affirmation 4).

But if Paul is speaking of something that is sinfully disobedient to God’s revealed will, how are we to explain Paul’s choice of words? Paul cannot give or withhold permission to sin, to disobey God, to rebel. The nature of the rule, which complementarians say Paul is stating, is inconsistent with Paul’s choice of words “I do not permit” or ouk epitrepō.

Imagine yourself as a prominent Christian leader, teaching – let’s say – the sanctity of human life and the sinfulness of murder, and supporting your teaching from Genesis because humans are made in the image of God, as it says in Genesis 1:26–27, and again in Genesis 5:3, and again in Genesis 9:6. Can you seriously imagine saying or writing: “I do not permit murder, for God made humans in his image”?

It is hard to imagine even the Pope speaking in such a way. That is because it is not your decision (or the Pope’s) whether murder is right or wrong, and it is not up to you (or the Pope) to either permit or not permit it. Murder is against God’s revealed will for human beings. To disobey God’s revealed will is sin.

If for some reason you were determined to use the word “permit” to express the prohibition, you would convey that it is a general rule by depersonalising it, as in “God’s word does not permit murder” or “It is not permitted to murder”.

The example of murder is convenient because of the connection with Genesis. Murder, of course, is an extreme case. But whether a sin against God’s revealed will is greater or lesser, the point is the same.

Now I acknowledge that Paul is writing his letter as an apostle, exercising his spiritual authority over a church which he personally built up. But even so, if Paul is meaning to express a creation-based prohibition, reflecting God’s revealed will for men and women, which it is sinful and rebellious to disobey, his language of personally withholding permission is exceedingly odd. Indeed, it is so completely inappropriate that it is hard to find words which sufficiently express its strangeness.

As a pastor, you wouldn’t say to your flock “I don’t permit you to commit adultery” or “I’m not permitting you to steal”.

The Bible is a big library of books, and it contains many general rules of conduct, but – unsurprisingly – there is nowhere in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, where someone states a general prohibition of wrong conduct with the expression ‘I do not permit’ or ‘I am not permitting’. This is absolutely unprecedented.

What do complementarian scholars say in answer to this fundamental objection? How do they explain such an unprecedented and unsuitable choice of words for a supposedly general prohibition based on God’s creation design for men and women?

I’ve surveyed the writings of complementarian scholars, and Mike Winger’s videos, and I haven’t been able to find an answer (see endnote).

The complementarian interpretation doesn’t fit Paul’s words.

The natural explanation for Paul’s choice of words is that he is not expressing a general rule of conduct, a general prohibition; instead, he is imposing a restriction on a particular group of deceived women, to limit the impact of false teachings.

As Tim Mascara has put it in this piece, 1 Timothy 2 is not a blueprint; it’s a bandage.

10) 1 Timothy 3 AND Titus 1

Paul provides lists of qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and in Titus 1:5–9.

Some reputable complementarian scholars acknowledge that these lists do not clearly exclude women. But others argue that the lists do exclude women because Paul includes in the lists a phrase which can be translated literally as “a one-woman man”. That’s found in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. This phrase is variously translated as “the husband of only one wife”, “faithful to his wife”, “married only once”, “faithful to their spouse”, “faithful in marriage”.

The list in 1 Timothy 3 goes on to refer to the candidate’s household, and both lists refer to the candidate’s children.

There is an important discussion to be had over whether Paul is using male language generically in 1 Timothy 3:2 and in Titus 1:6 to indicate qualities that apply to both men and women.

We could also discuss the translation options for the word that introduces the lists – dei – which could mean “it is necessary” or could mean “it is fitting”.

And there’s an important discussion to be had about the real-life background:

• if there were already exceptions to men’s leadership in the Old Testament, and if there were already exceptions in wider society, and if Jesus’ and the apostles’ attitude to women was more positive than prevailing culture, and if women received and exercised the gifts of the Spirit, and if there were prominent women in the churches such as Priscilla, and Junia, and Lydia, and Nympha, and Phoebe, and so on, then – if there was to be a rule that eldership in the churches was forbidden to all women – it would need to be stated very clearly, so that there could be no possible doubt of it.

But here’s our big point. The critical question is this: Is Paul giving indications of fitting candidates for Timothy and Titus to consider, or is he laying down mandatory qualifications which are essential in all cases if a person is to be regarded as fit to be an elder in God’s church? Our big point is that it makes no sense to read these lists as lists of mandatory qualifications.

Remember that in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul wrote about the advantages of singleness for doing the Lord’s work. The result of the mandatory-qualifications reading would be that Paul himself would be regarded as unfit to be a local church elder, because he didn’t have a wife, and he didn’t have a household, and he didn’t have children. And the same would apply even to the Lord Jesus himself, who did not have a wife, or a household, or children. That would be an absurd conclusion.

The lists are not general mandatory requirements; they are indicators of likely candidates, suitable to the circumstances.

If the lists cannot properly be used to definitely exclude people who don’t have a spouse or children or a household, they cannot properly be used to definitely exclude women.

Our reading of the lists as indicators, suitable to the circumstances, is confirmed by the differences between the two lists. For example, the church in Ephesus is well established, so Paul is able to say in 1 Tim 3:6 that the candidate should not be a new convert. But the churches in Crete where Titus needs to get elders appointed are new, so there is no such requirement in Paul’s letter to Titus, since that would prevent any appointments being made.