“New Covenant Leadership and Women in the Church”

“New Covenant Leadership and Women in the Church”

Stoughton Apostolic Church

Feb. 22, 2026

By Zach Sloane

In the new covenant, leadership amongst God’s people has shifted in its expression and goals. Prior to the new covenant, God led his people by patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), judges like Samson and Deborah, prophets like Elijah and Elisha, priests like Aaron and the sons of Levi, and kings like David and Solomon. These leaders were special people with a special anointing to lead the people of God, to represent the interests of God amongst his people, to bring his word to the people, and give God’s direction to the people.

These types of leaders were seen as agents of God. God’s people heard, followed, and obeyed God by listening to and following  these leaders in their respective roles and specially designed tasks. This is why the ministry was taken so seriously. These people were representatives of God and the current covenant they were under, leaving very slim if any margin for error.

To be a leader it was not up to the individual to put their name forward, politically campaign, or unilaterally decide to take this authority to themselves. The call of God was required, and in some cases the right lineage. In all cases, leadership was to be determined, empowered, and authorized by God. As we see in Hebrews, not even Jesus took the right to be a leader into his own hands.

Hebrews 5:4 (LSB) — “And no one takes this honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. “

The representative nature of this leadership was such that the leaders, be they prophets, priests, or kings were all to lead by direct contact with God, his voice and his law, and then communicate what they received, overseeing the execution of God’s word, Law, established procedures, and will for the people. Although all people were encouraged to worship and obey the Lord, God’s involvement, word, and leadership in people’s lives came (almost) exclusively through these leaders.

When the New Covenant came, a lot of these dynamics  changed. The scope of these notes is not to so much to discuss the offices and organization of new testament leadership (now in the hands of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists, elders and deacons), but rather to introduce the change in the nature of the leadership these office holders provide.

No Longer teaching to know the Lord

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (LSB) — “Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, but I was a husband to them,” declares Yahweh. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh: “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 And they will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahweh,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares Yahweh, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

In this prophecy of the new covenant and its internal dynamics,  we are told that no longer will brothers and neighbours teach each other to know the Lord, “for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jeremiah 31:34). The nature of the leadership that God’s people is to provide has shifted from being leaders who are relaying information, direction, guidance, and communication from God to His people, almost as middle-men, to now teaching his people how to connect with the Holy Spirit themselves, now resident within every believer.

New covenant ministry is a ministry of the Spirit, and the way that leadership functions revolves around understanding this point.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6 (LSB) —  “Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

We are now not leading people to externally know and obey the commands of God as given in the law, as written down, nor as dictated to them by special leaders. The leader’s job in the new covenant is not simply to inform. The primary job of leaders in the new covenant is to point to Jesus and the relationship with the Father and the Spirit that He has established for us, helping people walk out their own relationship to God. It is a ministry of equipping (Eph. 4:12) and a ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19).

New Covenant leadership points to Jesus and helps people hear his gospel and testimony so that they can connect with God through him themselves. The word of God is taught to make people aware that they can themselves engage what God the Spirit is doing in them and how he is leading them.

New covenant ministry is not to represent God to people, but rather re-present Him. Leaders are now to communicate and reveal Jesus through their lives, walk, words and works, through the fruit of their life and the example they set. Leaders are to reveal Jesus to his people by their message, ministry, and life lived, inspiring others to see Jesus, connect with Jesus, and relate to him themselves.

I John 2:27-29 (LSB) — “And as for you, the anointing whom you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as He has taught you, abide in Him. 28 And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He is manifested, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who does righteousness has been born of Him.”

Notice that the apostle John’s leadership and teaching here is to instruct in a manner that helps people know and believe that they can hear Jesus’ voice and abide in him themselves. He is pointing out to them that true righteousness isn’t realized by listening to and conforming to an external command given or written on God’s behalf by a special person or leader, but through the individual’s own new birth and subsequent personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Qualifications for this type of Ministry

The qualifications for this new covenant type of ministry have also slightly changed. No one is a priest because they have been born in to the right family, nor is anyone a king in God’s kingdom because of their lineage. All believers who have been genuinely born again of God’s Spirit, who are filled with with that same Spirit, and have the resurrection life of Christ in them as their new life, have been made by virtue of that life within, priests and a kingdom to God.

Revelation 1:5-6 (NIV) — “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”

This priesthood is based not on genealogy nor or lineage nor ethnic purity, but is based on the blood of Jesus and his indestructible life within the believer.

Hebrews 7:15-17 (NIV) — “And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

It is very important to see that the priesthood Jesus is of, the order over which he is high priest, is not due to any legal requirement, law, or physical qualifying factor. He is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek (a King-Priest, whereas the Law required these two roles to be separate), and is qualified as such because he is the possessor of indestructible life, a Life that is without father or mother, genealogy, or lineage, but that is of the Son of God (Hebrews 7:3). This is the priesthood we are brought into, all of us believers, and it is because we are in Christ and he in us.

The first qualification of new covenant leadership is therefore to be a possessor of this same indestructible, resurrection life of Christ, and to have that holy, love-filled life of Christ evident to such as extent that it's inward power and influence over one’s life leads to the fulfilling of the leadership criteria the Scripture gives. The mature possession and manifestation of the life of Christ in sufficient measure so as to reveal these character requirements is the first priority.

Beyond that, in the new covenant we don’t look at strength, appearance, physical or natural gifting. Rather, after being satisfied that the leadership candidate has within them the manifestation of Christ’s nature by the Spirit as outlined in Scriptures, we look for gifting and calling. There must be evidence and confirmation, usually within the community of God, that someone has been called and has the requisite gifts and calling.

Gifts must go with calling. Sadly, too often people who have spiritual gifts are put in leadership at a level that is beyond the call, because we associate gifting with calling. You will be gifted to do what you are called to, but often that even comes after. The popular saying “He equips the called, rather than calls the equipped,” is so true!

The true nature of leadership in the new covenant is to BE something rather than do something. It is to be in Christ and let Christ be in you what he has called you to do and be. In so doing, the leader reveals Christ through their actions, works, words, and person to such a degree that they inspire and lead others not to the accomplishment of a goal, a behaviour, or a new piece of knowledge, but unto their own relationship with God through Christ, by the Spirit.

Leaders lead people to Jesus. They don’t try to be Jesus, be anyone’s mediator, or be the Holy Spirit to those they lead. Leaders in the new covenant are ministers of the Spirit, ministering spiritual life and not just information or behaviour techniques. Being established in these principles is key to new covenant ministry as minsters of the Spirit.

Leadership Proposal:

For the very quickly summarized reasons above, I am proposing that the requirements for leadership in the new covenant church are these criteria, and only these:

1. You know God, have been born again and made alive in Christ

2. Christ has become your life, and you have walked with him in sufficient degree that the manifestation of his life in you by the Spirit has matured you to manifest the character requirements outlined in the scriptures for leadership.

3. You have been called by God, and that call has been recognized and affirmed, with fruit following.

4. You have the gifts of God to function in the role you been called to.

5. You have sufficient understanding of the nature and role of new covenant leadership so as to not seek to lead people to yourself , your ministry, or own

   objectives, but to lead people to Jesus and their own relationship with Him.

   
   

These are perhaps lengthy descriptions, but each of these criteria I believe to be biblically sound. Before moving onto the next section I would like to propose my core thesis:

None of these requirements are rooted in age, physical appearance, socio-economic status, natural ability, social standing, popularity, political machinations, or GENDER!

Women’s Rights Or Jesus Christ?

Before moving toward the scriptural explanations as to why I believe that women are biblically qualified and called to leadership in the new covenant church, let me first make a few qualifying statements.

Oftentimes, the rebuttal to this belief is the accusation that this position of allowing women in leadership is motivated by a need to be culturally relevant and order our church leadership according to the times. In regard to this accusation, I would say nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather, I contend that the interpretation of the scriptures to prohibit females from leading in the church (if they are appropriately called), is itself a cultural and not biblical mandate. The prohibition I believe comes from cultural influences and not the Bible.

I would make clear (forgive my bluntness), my position on this topic does not stem from a desire to support or fight for equal rights between the sexes, a desire to erase the differences between the genders. It is not in support of feminism (which I believe has become reductionist and destructive), nor any other “ism” nor cultural issue. For me it is an issue regarding our willingness to accept Jesus Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life of the church, and the ministry of his Spirit.

As outlined above, the core issues qualifying leadership in the new covenant is not male or female, but the inward life of Christ expressed in a mature way, the call and gifts of God, and the anointing of the Spirit. This in no way eradicates the differences between men and women, which are God created and to be honoured, but it is to say that leadership is manifested by the life of Christ and his spiritual gifts, not through our gender.

It is my belief that men trying to lead out of their masculinity rather than out of the anointing is just as harmful as women attempting to lead for reasons based simply in a quest for equality. The ideas that men should lead out of masculinity and women should lead in a quest for equality, both miss the point. Christ in you is the hope of glory and his life and expression is what those being led need, not masculinity nor femininity. It is Christ in and through the leader by his Spirit.

Debates around this issue and the prohibition of female leaders is not problematic because it denies us feminine voices, or the feminine “energy” we need. The problem is that it invalidates and makes impossible to see manifested the life and gift of Christ by his Spirit in one whole group of people, reducing the impact of God’s people by 50%. By saying this I am not arguing for quotas in leadership either. If there are no women called there no qualified women. We should not have leaders just to make up numbers or be representative. Leadership in the church is directed by Jesus and is to express him, not the mob, and is not a representative democracy.

Ultimately this issue revolves around the fundamental questions regarding what is the core element and nature of leadership, what are its qualifying features, and what makes it successful? If the answer to any of the questions is something other than the manifestation of the life and gift of Christ by the Spirit through a human vessel, it is not only incorrect, but dangerously limiting to the expression of Christ in his body.

Please consider the following with my heart in mind as a pastor who has been tasked by  God through the Holy Scriptures, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-16). It is my hope that this debate or topic can move off of the temporal, fleshly, and limited grounds about gender (or any other such topic), and we can again demand, train, raise up, and see leaders who lead by the Spirit and out of the abundance of Life within, leaving all other factors behind.

Women in Ministry Leadership in the New Covenant

Disclaimer: As we wade into the Scriptures please allow me a few qualifications for what follows. I have written this not as a thorough academic paper but to be as pastoral as I can. I readily acknowledge that some formatting of the following information, citations, quotations, Greek wordings, etc. may not all be correct, and at times the tenses of words off, opting to use derivatives instead. Please forgive the amateur nature of the format, but understand its nature is pastoral not academic. Yet, with all that being said, I stand by all that I have put below and believe it to be true and accurate.

Method: I am essentially outlining the scriptures and scriptural arguments that I have heard most commonly used to suggest that women cannot be in leadership, and then attempting to share how I read those same scriptures to affirm that women can lead.

I will start with perhaps the most famous of them, 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Who is Not Permitted ?

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

When Paul says a woman must learn in silence, the first thing to note is that he is not requiring her to “not talk.” The word for silence here is hésuchia (ἡσυχία ), and rather than meaning speechlessness, it means an inner tranquility and calm.

This does not mean women are to be silent as in not speak, but to embrace a quiet, still demeanour. Learning in silence then would mean to be learning in a manner that honours the one by whom they are being taught by listening calmly and peaceably.

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man…”

This word suffer or permit, epitrepó (ἐπιτρέπω), is used here in the present tense. It should read “ I am not permitting a woman/wife to teach” If it were a universal injunction than it should arguably read, “I do not permit women to teach men,” and not be in the present tense the way that it is.

Of particular note is the fact that in seventeen other places in the New Testament this word epitrepó, is used for a situation specific decision and not to give general and universal permission.

This is perhaps at face value a moot point but it should be noted that when the Bible says “ I suffer not a woman to teach,” that word teach is didaskó (διδάσκω), and it literally only means to teach, to instruct, impart knowledge (disseminate information).

This word is the generic word for teach and in no way assumes or describes “teaching in an authoritative manner or office.” It simply means teach, disseminate information.

For example, men and women are commanded in the great commission to go into all the world, make disciples, and part of that is teaching them to obey what Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:20). That is not an assignment given to only men.  This is also what is meant by the gift of teaching in Romans 12:7.

This may be obvious, but I mention it here to show that the idea that this word means to teach in an authoritative manner or from a platform or position in a church is not correct. It simply means to teach. Thus in 1 Timothy 2:12 there is a present tense prohibition from Paul on women in that church teaching, not just from a platform or position, but from teaching at all. Some argue that what Paul is saying is that women can teach but are prohibited from doing so as pastor or elder or as an authoritative office holder, but this word has not such meaning. It simply means to teach.

Usurp Authority /Exercise Authority

This is the only time that this word is used in the Bible and it is an incredibly rare word in the Greek language at Paul’s time of writing.  The word here is authenteó (αὐθεντέω),  and it means something specifically other than the authority that Jesus gives his believers (exousia / ἐξουσία), and different from the authority God gives his minsters to build up the church (2 Corinthians 13:10 — exousia / ἐξουσία).

This word is a negative word that has within it the connotation of usurping, or taking authority for or by one’s self, or to dominate This is not duly given authority, but authority taken by one’s own hand. This is inappropriate for both men and women to do. Men are also prohibited from doing this, but in this letter, at this church it was the women doing so and so they were told not to.

It is debatable whether it is saying that authority is being usurped by the act of teaching itself, as the same act is encouraged by both genders in other parts of the Bible where this accusation is not levied.  It is also not a word that is related to any particular office or position. That is to say, it does not read that women were usurping authority by teaching, but rather teaching AND usurping authority.

“For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

This is or should be beyond dispute as to what is meant here. Linguistically this literally means first as in sequence, not as in rank. Adam was the first one created. This word is used repeatedly in NT to denote sequence not rank, and is beyond dispute.

At a rational level, the idea that order of creation equals hierarchy would also mean we are below the animals. We are not!  This statement sets the stage for what he is about to say next.

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

By pointing to the garden Paul is retelling the story of how God gave the commandment to Adam, not because he was hierarchically superior to Eve, but because he was created first. God gave Adam the command, and then Eve either didn’t get it directly from God, or didn’t hear or respect either Adam or what he taught her, and was thus deceived.

This is not because Eve was less than Adam, and Paul is not saying that women should have no authority because they were created second in rank. He is telling them that in the creation story God gave a command to the one he first made (man in Genesis 2:16 and woman not made til 2:22), and the woman wasn’t either properly taught, or she didn’t respect and listen to the teaching she received.

Eve sinned beause she was deceived, Adam sinned in full knowledge of what to not do. If this were an argument saying women can’t teach because they are inferior in this department to men because she got deceived but Adam didn’t and therefore she is a worse sinner, I pose the question, who really was worse? Adam deliberately disobeyed, but Eve was deceived. Which is worse?

Ephesian Church Timothy is Leading…

The reason why Paul appealed to the creation story was because what happened in the garden was arguably happening in the church in Ephesus. Paul wrote Timothy this letter to address false teaching and myths that were being taught ( I Tim. 1:3-4). People were teaching what they didn’t understand (1 Tim. 1:7).

Paul is putting things in order.  He is instructing men to pray for leaders, as opposed to believing them to be beyond help, reminding them God wants them saved (1 Tim2:1-4) He was trying to get the women to dress appropriately, to show modesty, and self-restraint, not trying to be something by the way they dress and present selves physically. The women were acting, dressing, and behaving inappropriately in this church.

Furthermore, the women were not listening and learning. They were talking when they should have been listening, and they were trying to teach before they had learned. They were not qualified to teach because they first had to learn in a respectful manner. They were some of the people Paul was writing about in the first chapter who were teaching false doctrines, myths, genealogies, and who were speaking about things of which they had no idea about.

The plain text tells us that the women were not needing instruction because of their sex or gender, but because they had not yet learned and weren’t showing the humility required to learn. This is why Paul tells Timothy refuse “goddess myths and old wives tales” (1 Tim. 5:7), the type that was being spread by these unlearned women.

He appeals to the creation order reminding them that Adam was made first and then Eve. Adam received instruction and Eve didn’t follow it as coming from God. She added to it, demonstrating she had not righty learned. Eve was thus deceived because she wasn’t first fully taught or didn’t receive the instruction she received from the one who taught her (acting independent). These women who were insisting on teaching BEFORE THEY LEARNED, were falling into the same trap.

This is a prohibition again made in the present tense, dealing with these specific women in Ephesus. In 1 Timothy 1:3 (LSB) Paul is clear in his instruction to Timothy, “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine.” The women were part of the “certain ones” who first needed to exercise humility and learn so as not to be deceived nor be deceivers.

Elders

1 Timothy 3:1-2 (LSB) — It is a trustworthy saying: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…

1 Timothy 3:1 states that anyone, not any male, can desire the office of being an overseer.  The word is tis (τις ) and refers to anyone not just  any male. We also know that there are no gender based exclusions in the other gifts of God (Romans 12:7), the gifts of Spirit (1 Corinthians 12), nor the gifts of Christ (Ephesians 4).

Furthermore,  in this letter that Paul is writing to Timothy at Ephesus, at a church in which there were women teaching myths, old wives tales, the improper use of the law, genealogies, and who had not yet submitted to learning in quiet, none of these “certain people” (of which the women were some), would qualify on the above grounds alone. They are not yet “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2), not because they are the wrong gender but because they are not honouring the need to first be taught. They simply didn’t qualify by their behaviour or learning level.  Therefore in this church, Timothy was not to ordain any of the women.

With no women candidates Paul proceeds to lay out the qualification for the male elders, and then adds that their wives must be good too (1 Timothy 3:11). He is further stating the problem they were having with the women, making it clear because of their current state they were not qualified, but that given this condition of the women the elders who did qualify had to have wives that behaved somewhat better than the rest.

It should be noted that although this letter was written to Timothy to address the problem in the Ephesian church, we can learn from this letter what the Holy Spirit is saying about qualification for ministry. In this instance, as in all instances, the untaught, false teachers who won’t submit to learning should not be included as leadership candidates, be they men or women.

Women Leaders in the Early Church

We further know that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a prohibition on women in this Ephesian church specifically, because throughout the book of Acts we see women in senior positions of leadership in the larger, broader, global church. Many of these women were mentioned by the same man (Paul) who did not permit women in eldership or to teach in Ephesus. He is thereby not universally restricting women from leadership, but only the problematic ones in Ephesus.

The scriptures list many prominent women in ministry and leadership in the early Church. Some examples include:

Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2) - Named as a deacon of a specific church. Also widely regarded as the one entrusted by Paul to bring his letter to the Romans from Corinth to Rome and explain its meaning to the Roman Christians.

Priscilla (Rom. 16:3) Strange that Paul breaks normal custom and puts her name before her husband’s name. He calls them both co-workers with himself and his station. She and her husband not only hosted a church in their home with great evidence that they were also its co-leaders,  but she was known in ministry to all the churches of the Gentiles.

Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16:6,12) - These women “work hard in the Lord.” This is a ministry related term in Paul’s writings. The terms “co-worker,” or “working in the Lord,” “workers for the gospel” also applied to Timothy, Apollos, Urbanus, Titus, Epaphroditus. To change these terms for the women would also necessitate changing the meaning for the men too.

Junia (Rom. 16:7) — Junia is mentioned alongside presumably her husband Andronicus, and is called “outstanding among the apostles.” Despite many efforts to declare  Junia a boy’s name, or that it was miss-spelled, there is overwhelming evidence that this is just not the case. It is clear she is a woman, and a woman not only known by the apostles, but outstanding among them. She was a standout, one of the best apostles.

Euodia & Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3) Also referred to as co-workers, again often and mostly used as a designation for leaders, who didn’t serve in the church kitchen, but who “contended together alongside of Paul in the Gospel.”

These named female workers of the New Testament Church sit alongside other mentioned women such as the Samaritan woman that Jesus met at the well acted as an evangelist (John 4), Phillip’s four daughters who all prophesied (Acts 21:9), whom from extra-biblical historical sources we discover people would travel to see to consult them and their prophetic gift. Mary Magdalene was the one that Jesus appeared to first, and was instructed by Jesus to let his disciples know he was alive, being the first to witness to his resurrection (Mark 16:9 &John 20:11-18). A truly apostolic act!

It is clear that what is said in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not a universal prohibition against all women anywhere not teaching, having authority, or excising leadership in the church, but is a specific prohibition given to a specific church to deal with a specific problem. If this were not the case, Paul and the Holy Spirit through Paul would by writing one thing and then doing and teaching another. That is lying or hypocrisy and we know God is not involved in either. Paul would be teaching one thing and doing another.

Corinthian Church

Taken at face value without the context of the letter, these verses isolated by themselves say women should not speak at all in church, indefinitely disqualifying them from leadership or any contribution to a church’s gathering and worship.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 (LSB) — 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

“The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

We know just from a very casual reading that there is more to this verse than what it appears to say if read in an isolated fashion, because just three verses earlier in 1 Corinthians 14:31 he tells the Corinthian believers that “they can all prophesy.”

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul says that women can pray and prophesy in the assembly. His concern is how they do it, not if they do it. So we already know that an isolated reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 does not mean women can never speak, nor speak authoritatively in church,  as he is just three verses and three chapters earlier teaching them to do so.

Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 11-14 is order. It is not just what is done or said, but how it is done and said. He is correcting the right way to dress in that context (1 Cor. 11:3-16), improper celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34), the improper use and disorder in the use of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:1-25), and he is correcting some people who were disrespecting authority, responsibility and decorum when sharing in the church (1 Cor. 14:26-39). Some of the ones who were disrespecting order were those who prophesied over others, those who spoke in tongues without interpretation, and women who were loud and talkative when they should be silent and honour what was happening.

Again, as in Ephesus, the women in Corinth were speaking when they should be listening and this was a problem that Paul was addressing. Presumably he has been informed about it by visiting members of Chloe’s household (1 Cor. 1:11).

Unlike in Ephesus where the women were trying to teach when they should first learn and were pushing themselves forward as teachers of false doctrine, myths, old wives tales, and genealogies, here in Corinth the women were disordered in their learning. It would be like someone constantly interrupting a sermon to ask a question that their more learned partner could easily answer at home.

“just as the Law also says”

It is unclear what is meant here as it is not a direct quote from the Law, but could have been oral tradition. This fact, along with the disputed placement of these verses has caused some scholars to believe that these verse were added into the text. Nevertheless, they do appear in even the earliest manuscripts, albeit sometimes in a different place.

But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

Verse thirty-five here lends further credence to the fact that this church was experiencing women who were disruptive in asking questions, and needed instead to ask their husbands, not blurt out disruptive questions in the assembly. The word woman here, guné  (γυνή /),  is the same word for, and is often translated as “wife.”

These verses in 1 Corinthians 11:34-35, although often used to shut down a woman from being a leader who speaks in the church, are actually the easiest to refute, as the person who wrote them does himself refute this interpretation by his own teachings in the same letter. We know therefore that this isolated interpretation cannot mean what those denying women the ability to speak in church say it means.

Furthermore, as a note to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 where it is believed by some to say that the Bible is prohibiting all women anywhere from authoritative teaching in the church, it is the same apostle inspired by the Holy Ghost, who also said women can pray and prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5, 14:31). This was also prophesied by the prophet Joel and quoted by the apostle Peter at Pentecost that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:16-17).  This all lends further credence to the fact that Paul was in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35  addressing a specific problem in the Corinthian church, but one that nonetheless we can learn from, as we do the rest of the letter.

Head

Some people make the argument that women should not be in leadership in the church because 1 Corinthians 11 states that men are the head of women. To therefore be led by women would be an inversion of the created order that the church should not participate in.  The people who make this claim interpret the following verse as meaning that “head” means and refers to authority.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (LSB) — But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of  Christ.

Head ( κεφαλή / kephalé ) — It literally means head, but just like in English, head can mean physical head while also meaning many things metaphorically. The question becomes what does it metaphorically mean in these verse? Is it used to describe authority, as in above in rank, or something else?

It is compelling to note that although you cannot rule this meaning of authority out altogether, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the meaning of head in Paul’s time was primary “source” not “authority over.”  We do this in English too when we speak of the fountain head, or the head of the river.

Terran Williams in "How God Sees Women: The End of Patiarychy notes that leading thinkers and teachers at the time such as Aristotle taught that the head was the source for the body. Pythagoras taught that the head was the source of male semen, and Philo taught that the head was closer to heaven and therefore sourced out heavenly power to the rest of the body.

Using Biblical evidence, citing the Septuagint that the apostles used and quoted when writing scripture, in over 150 instances where the word head could be used to describe authority, it is only used as such four times, with other words being used instead.

To suggest that the above verse is saying the authority over women is man, and that it is the same as Christ’s authority over man would be idolatry. Jesus is the Lord and authoritative “head” of the church, both its male and female members.

The reading of source is more faithful.

“Christ is the head of every man” — Christ is the source of every man’s life and spiritual being. Colossians 2:10 “ And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power…”

"the man is the head of a woman” — Man is the source of woman, having been taken from his side and made in his image, “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Genesis 2:21-24).

“God is the head of Christ” —  God the Father and God the Son are co-equal, but the Son voluntarily submits. However, we are to see Christ as coming from the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). Jesus although eternally God, as the Son of Man and Son of God “proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42).

This point of origin interpretation not only linguistically works, but is actually the context of the verses that follow in 1 Corinthians 11:8 (LSB). “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man.” By stating that man is the head (source of woman) he is stating that man and woman are made of the same stuff and therefore different but equal. Furthermore, the idea of hierarchy or of authoritative headship of man over woman rooted in created order or origin is also completely obliterated in the following verses in the same chapter.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (LSB ) —  Nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, but all things originate from God.

The Bible here goes on to say that regardless of what the order of origin or creation is, or the point he was making about head coverings, “in the Lord,” as in when one is in Jesus, neither man nor woman are independent of each other, but all have their new common origin in God. In Christ we are all made new, born from above, in which there is in Christ neither nor male nor female (Gal. 3:28).

Head Coverings

1 Corinthians 11:4-7 (LSB) — Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, shames his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut short. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.

It is debatable here as to what Paul means, but needless to say many if not most believers do not believe this to be an eternal command for all people at all times, as evidenced by the fact that it is not commonly practiced. A literal, fundamentalist reading here would, if taken in isolation, require women to wear a head cover at church at all times, no exceptions.

Quite apart from historical and cultural reasons why people on both sides of the debate interpret this command as merely culturally relevant to its time, the Bible itself has literary clues as to why this must be the case. In 1 Corinthians 11:6 Paul says, “if it is shameful for a women to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” It is almost as if he is taking a cue from nature (1 Corinthians 11:14), or what is natural to them and then argues “if” this is the case, women ought to cover their head.

Rather than being conformist to the world as he would later say not be in Romans 12:2, this is an example of Paul being “all things to all people that he may win some” (1 Cor. 9:19-23). The Bible is recognizing that the people of the time were living in a shame-based culture in which unveiled or uncovered women we seen as prostitutes and slaves. It was the married and honourable women who wore veils. Thus, by instructing that all woman wear veils or head coverings in that culture rather than arguing for a symbol of male hierarchy over women, he was elevating the status of all women in the congregation, making them all “honourable" (Terran Williams in How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy).

If you read the original text in 1 Corinthians 11 you will also note the head covering isn’t symbolic. The verse doesn’t mention symbols of authority, but actually reads correctly in the New International Version of 1 Corinthians 11:10 that “…a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.” Terran Williams again points out that in the use of the word authority (exousia), of all other 102 uses of the word in the New Testament, including the nine times it is used in 1 Corinthians, all usages refer to wielding a type of “self-possessing” authority.

The irony in the mention of “authority over” in this instance, is that the woman is supposed to possess authority over her own physical head, not coming under a man’s authority telling her what to put on. She is however in so doing, to obey the culturally sensitive practice of wearing a head cover for the sake of the angels, signifying that she is not a prostitute or slave, but along with every other woman present an honoured daughter of the king.

Cultural Accommodation

Some people believe that by acknowledging that the Bible has portions that were written to suit the culture of the time, we are somehow diluting the Bible and rendering it meaningless for today. They correctly believe that the word of God is eternal, abiding, and eternally authoritative. However, some argue that because this is so, everything in the Bible has an equally applicable, direct, literal application in all places, at times, in exactly the same way. To be fair though, even these people believe in hermeneutical or interpretive exceptions. For example, we don’t see many of these people cutting out their eyes that cause them to sin or stoning their disobedient children. Nevertheless, there are many instances where what they are saying is true. Most in fact!  But when the Bible itself gives examples of how it is relating to a current culture, we are actually disobedient to its instructions should we try to implement what the Bible says is culturally specific into our own time.

Not only at times does the Bible hint at when it is being culturally specific in its instructions, but it also sometimes shows us how God speaks to people living in a current culture by giving them instructions for how to operate in that culture, while also making it clear that in a preferred world affected by God’s kingdom, those same aspects of that culture would be removed. The best example of this, apart from the culturally specific instruction for women’s dress in a shame-based, hierarchical, paterfamilias culture, is the way the scriptures speak of slavery.

We believe slavery to be evil, yet the word of God says “slaves obey your masters” and  serve them as you would Christ (Eph. 6:5-9). These same scriptures also provide instructions on how masters are to behave. Strangely silent is the call to let the slaves go free because it was for freedom Christ has set us free. Intuitively we know in our society slavery is a great evil. No man should own another man, and we believe that sentiment is shared by God, yet we still see commands in the Bible for how people are to operate within this fallen system.

Even though these instructions exist and God is speaking to people within a fallen system, we know from scriptures that God wants people free (Galatians 5:1). The Bible even tells slaves that if they can get free to do so.

1 Corinthians 7:21 (NIV) —  Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

Similarly, Paul makes an appeal to Philemon to accept back his runaway slave Onesimus. He asks Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother, accepting him as he would accept Paul, even offering to pay for his freedom (Philemon 1:12-21).

How Paul interacts with Philemon over this issue is incredibly revealing as to how God deals with people within a culture that he ultimately wants to change. In the true nature of godly transformation, Paul is not demanding that Philemon accept Onesimus and not punitively enslave him,  but is rather asking and appealing to Philemon so that the abolishment of Onesimus’s slavery was done from the heart voluntarily, and not by commandment.

It could be that this is the very principle God employs as well, preferring to see things change because hearts change not laws change. Thus, he works to subvert the law or the cultural practices not by direct assault and prohibition, but by working within them, changing the hearts of those in them and thus bringing it down from the inside out, one person at a time.

Philemon 1:8-9a (NIV) — “ Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love…”

This approach by Paul and arguably God himself is perhaps why although knowing slavery to be intuitively evil and God as opposed to it, he still gives commands for how to function within it, knowing that if those commands are followed and Jesus’ disciples truly take on his nature, that will bring down that institution from the inside. This is arguably why also in some cases it appears as though God is speaking to women within the confines of the times, trying to elevate their status and subvert the system that is based on human factors and not the life of his Son or the Spirit of God at work in humanity.

On the rare occasion when the Bible speaks to specific situations in specifics cultures or churches, rather than be concerned that by acknowledging that fact we are diluting the Word of God and ignoring his instructions, we should see it that we are being obedient to rightly divide the word. We should see God and his people’s commitment to do what it takes to get the Gospel out there and we should follow His example as exemplified by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NIV) — Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Order and Hierarchy in Creation

In an appeal to supersede the claim that some of the prohibitions of women in leadership were simply cultural, some appeal to the creation story. They argue that the reason women cannot be in leadership is that there should be a male hierarchy in the church to mirror the male hierarchy they believe existed in the beginning at creation.

Matthew 19:3-11 (NIV) — 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Jesus himself appealed to the conditions at the beginning as normative, and so should we. However, he also noted as I did above, that the law of Moses made concessions for people because of their hard hearts, showing that again God is willing to work in less than ideal scenarios, even while working to bring about his ideal.

As we look at what was in the beginning as it pertained to man and woman, and are willing to read what the scriptures says without reading our interpretation into it, we will see that it is a remarkable clear in regards to man and women being equal.

Genesis 1:26-28  (AKJV) — And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image”

Man in Hebrew ( אָדָם / Adam ) means man/mankind. This is why God says let “them have dominion.” Together, man and wife, male and female both made up the image of God and together they both had dominion. There is no evidence here of hierarchy, but equal possessors of life, God’s image, and dominion. It is notable that there is no mention of one having dominion over the other, but shared dominion over the earth.

Genesis 2:18 (NIV) —  And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him

Some people use this idea of woman made as a help meet, or a helper to suggest that the Bible is saying here that the one who is helping is subordinate to the leadership and call of the one that she is helping. As Genesis 1:26-28 made clear, the call, commission, and dominion authority were given to “them” and to “mankind,” not one of them. But secondly the word doesn’t suggest that.

Helper ( עֵזֶר` / ezer ) means as it says, helper, one who helps. The problem with subordinating help or the helper to the one that is being helped is that we would then have to say that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to us. We would have say that somehow the third person of the Trinity whom Jesus called the Helper, as Eve was a helper, is somehow lesser than us Christians, the ones who are being helped. This surely must be seen as incorrect.

John 14:26 (NKKJV) —  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Furthermore, the English word help in the Genesis 2:18 account of Eve as a suitable help meet is actually too tame of a word. The word ezer denotes a type of help that is not subordinate work, but aide that comes in the form of giving outside strength to assist where it is lacking. God is said be this type of help/helper to us (Ps. 115:11). This is also in keeping with the fact that the word group in English that called Eve a “suitable help meet” is equally lacking in depth and precision.

The word suitable is actually in Hebrew ke-“negdo” ( נֶגֶד ), and it means far more than just one who is suitable to help in a subordinate way. It is actually a compound word meaning “like opposite.” Eve was a suitable help meet in the sense that she was the counterpart that completed Adam the male, that imparted and brought a helping strength from outside of Adam that when joined together made a whole, strong, engaged partnership.

With a little insight, we can see that linguistically, and even in the English text itself, there are enough clues to see that reading into the Genesis account a created hierarchy that subordinates women to men’s calling as helpers and aides, not equally authoritative partners is an incorrect reading of the scripture. This is further stated by Peter when he reiterates that men and women are co-heirs of the grace of spiritual life.

1 Peter 3:7 (AKJV) — Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Here Peter actually takes this a step further by saying to men, you must honour and acknowledge your wife as the weaker vessel (weaker bodily), but if you fail to honour her as a joint or co-heir of spiritual life (Zoe not Bios) with yourself, your prayers will not be answered. As it turns out, there is a lot on the line when it comes to recognizing the joint authority as heirs that men and women are given in Christ.

Husband and Wives

There are finally some who argue that women cannot be elders or hold authoritative leadership in the church because it would violate the order or hierarchy of Christian marriage should a women be in a leadership position that “out ranks” or is leading over her husband. To some, this means that by virtue of her leadership position at the church, she is now head over him when in fact that Bible says that “husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23).

Ephesians 5:21-33 (NIV) — Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The first thing to note is that although the wife is called to submit to the husband, they are both called first to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21). Secondly, as discussed in the notes on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, the word for head although often taken to mean “authority,” it is most likely interpreted as “source.” For a linguistic approach, you can revisit the notes on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 above, but there are also many theological and biblical reasons to interpret this as source even here.

Ephesians 5:23 (NIV) — For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.

Not withstanding the fact that the Bible and all credible Christians understand that Jesus is the authoritative leader and “head” of the Church, when he is here referred to as “head” source is again most likely the meaning. Many instances in the Scripture describe Jesus as Lord, yet here he is referenced to as Saviour in his supply of healing, deliverance, salvation, and wholeness to his people. Later in this section, the way Jesus is said to love the church and exercise “headship” is not seen in his “authority over,” but on what he has done for, provides for, and gives his people. He gave his life for his people, he is the source of cleansing and washing of the word, and the cause for her to be without stain or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:25-27).

This reading of source is perfectly consistent with other mentions of Jesus in the Scriptures as head. For example, in Colossians 2:19 Jesus is said to be the head that some have lost connection to, the source of growth from God.

Colossians 2:19 (LSB) — “…and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”

The example that husbands are to follow is to be a source of love, feeding and caring for their wives just as they would care for and feed their own selves (Ephesians 5:29). Jesus there in Ephesians is used as an example of loving, washing, serving, word providing, not one of leading and lording it over. To be sure, Jesus has the right to rule us and each person should live under his rule. However, that is precisely the point! Each person must come under Jesus’ rule. Any Christian husband should love his wife by helping her live under Christ’s rule, not their own. Husband are not invited to relate to wives as their Lord as Christ does the church, but as source as Christ is to his body, even giving of own life to supply for her life, growth, and well-being.

Furthermore, the way that Christ acts as our Saviour is he gives us his very life and Spirit, not an inferior life or Spirit. He gives us his life making us one Spirit with him (1 Cor. 6:17),  and in the same way man and woman become one flesh. Man and women are not higher and lower, but both are members of Christ's body equally (Ephesians 5:30), and their union produces the mutuality of oneness,  not a leader-follower dynamic.

Christian marriage is to be a picture of the unity and union the church has in its redeemed relationship to Christ. He restores us and gives us life. The marriage is meant to be a prophecy of the relationship between Christ and the church showing in its restored relational dynamics what this relationship is like. Marriage in Christ, a Christian marriage is meant to be this picture, demonstrating the redemption that Christ brings to us his church by redeeming man and wife from the fallen dynamics that marriages and relationship have experienced since the fall.

Rather than Christlike marriages being one of leader-follower, doer and helper, higher and lesser, subordinate and leader dynamics, they are meant to reflect the mutuality of the garden in which Adam and Eve were co-equal partners in the call, the commission, and the dominion authority God gave mankind made in his image, male and female.

In the new covenant our perfected image is not found in man and woman joining together and reflecting God’s image, but in coming into Christ who is the exact representation of God’s being and glory (Hebrews 1:1-3). Humanity was made in God’s image, male and female, but now God’s restored humanity is not in a percent union of man and woman, but in both man and woman’s inclusion in the perfect Man, the Last Adam, Jesus. Thus there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, not because male female dynamics and differences are done away with, we are created distinct from one another and must remain so, but our unity into God’s image is now found in Christ. Husbands and wives in Christ are biologically different, yet co-heirs, and again equal partners in the gift and manifestation of his divine life, inheritance, call and commission ( 1 Peter 3:17).

Genesis 3:16 (NIV) — To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain and conception, In pain you will bear children; Your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.”

As you can see, being ruled by her husband was a consequence of the fall and of sin, not God’s created order. In Christ, woman is free from man’s rule and comes under Christ’s rule. As husband does the same,  they are co-equal heirs as they love and respect and submit to one another.

Miscellaneous Objections:

Jesus didn’t have female disciples

I believe the Bible allows for and teaches that females can lead, however, even in the twenty-first century, if I had a plan to bring twelve people with me everywhere I went, living in close quarters, sleeping together and sharing intimate experiences, I wouldn’t bring mixed company either. Culturally it would be inappropriate, and it wouldn’t be wise from a human dynamics perspective either.

Leadership criteria being rooted in the Spirit and Christ’s Life is a gnostic or platonic ignoring of physical, created order in the material world that Jesus came to redeem.

This objection is predicated upon the idea that what is being argued for is an ignoring of differences between the sexes, which is fundamentally not the argument at all. Physical, emotional, and external differences between the sexes, created, innate and physical, are not to be ignored, marginalized, or set aside. What is being argued here is that the nature of new covenant leadership is to lead people to Jesus into their own relationship with Him, and gender plays not part in that at all.

Saying as Paul said there is no “Jew nor Gentile, Male nor Female, Slave nor Free” as he did in Galatians 3:28, is not saying physical created differences are now melted away and ignored, to be escaped and seen as less than. Rather, what unites us, makes us truly who we are, what empowers and qualifies us, what brings life to these aspects of our existence is the spiritual life of Christ within, by His Spirit, not just the physical.

Women and men, in all their physical and internal created differences should continue to be and celebrate those differences, as one in Christ. Women leading in church is not asking them to be manly or to ignore their femininity, but asking them as we do men, to lead by the Spirit and not by the flesh.

References:

1. All linguistic definitions, words, meanings and Hebew and Greek wordings were taken from Biblehub.com

   
   

2. For parts mentioned, as well as for stats on frequency of word usages, and the references to cultural information regarding the veiling of married and unmarried women, I relied on the work of Terran Williams in "How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy." The Spiritual Bakery Publications (Cape Town, South Africa. 2022). I would also recommend this book as an excellent survery of the debate, as it included many sources both for and against.