Tag: Deaconess

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Throwback Thursday ~ Rock Your Role: Oh No She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate, and Esther Wasn’t an Egalitarian

Michelle Lesley

Originally published November 13, 2015

Rock Your Role is a series examining the “go to” and hot button Scriptures that relate to and help us understand our role as women in the church. Don’t forget to prayerfully consider
our three key questions as you read.

How can you say women aren’t to preach to, teach, or hold authority over men in the church? What about Deborah, Esther, Huldah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and the women at Jesus’ tomb? Didn’t they all preach to men, teach them, or hold authority over them?

That’s one of the arguments often put forth by people who reject what God’s word plainly says about the biblical role of women in the church. And the short answer is very simple: Yes and no, and so what?

But maybe a longer answer would be better.

First of all, there’s a proper way and an improper way to understand Scripture. We want to make sure we understand Scripture the proper way. When we look to Scripture to find out how we should behave – what we should do and not do – we do not look first, or primarily, at the biographies of people in the Bible and what they did or didn’t do, and model ourselves after them.

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of Scripture: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive passages describe something that happened: Noah built an ark. Esther became queen. Paul got shipwrecked. These passages simply tell us what happened to somebody. Prescriptive passages are commands or statements to obey. Don’t lie. Share the gospel. Forgive others.

If we wanted to know how to have a godly marriage, for example, we would look at passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7, and Exodus 20:14,17. These are all passages that clearly tell us what to do and what not to do in order to have a godly marriage.

What we would not do is look at David’s and Solomon’s lives and conclude that polygamy is God’s design for marriage. We would not read about Hosea and assume that God wants Christian men to marry prostitutes. We would not read the story of the woman at the well and think that being married five times and then shacking up with number six is OK with Jesus.

When looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible.

And when looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible.

Descriptive passages may support, but never trump, the clear instruction of prescriptive passages.

But just for funzies, let’s take a quick look at these ladies so often trotted out in defense of Christian women disobeying Scripture. (If you’re unclear as to what God’s word says about women’s role in the church, you might want to check out this article and this article before reading further.)

Deborah, Huldah, and Esther:

The very first thing we need to remember about these ladies is that they were under the old (Mosaic) covenant of the Old Testament, not the new (grace) covenant of the New Testament. There are a lot of things about the old covenant that no longer apply to Christians in the New Testament because Christ fulfilled the law of the old covenant (Bacon and poly-cotton blends, anyone?). Likewise, there are things about the new covenant that did not apply under the old covenant (The church? Evangelism? Nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.), or for which there are no reasonable precedents in the Old Testament because the church is a new covenant institution.

None of these women were pastors. None taught men the Scriptures in the church (or even temple) setting. None assumed authority over men in the church (or even the temple).

Deborah was a judge. She decided disputes between Israelites and discussed with Barak battle instructions that God had already revealed to him. When Barak refused to stand up and fight like a man, God used Deborah, a woman, to show him that another woman, Jael, would get the glory for killing Sisera. In a patriarchal society a woman in leadership and a female war hero would not have been seen by men or women as a positive thing, but rather as shaming men who were too cowardly to step up, lead, and protect their women and children.

Huldah was a prophetess. She was sent for during the reign of Josiah when the temple was being repaired and the priests hadn’t even been able to find the book of the law for years. Again, what does it say about the spiritual condition of the most important men in the country – the king and the high priest – when they, in a highly patriarchal society, have to humble themselves and seek out a woman to tell them what God says? Huldah repeated to them what God had told her, and that was it. Since we now have God’s written word and He no longer speaks through direct revelation this way, there is no parallel between Huldah and New Testament women preaching, teaching, and exercising authority.

Esther, under threat of death, couldn’t even talk to her own husband without his permission, so I’m not really sure why people seem to think she exercised any authority over men. In fact, the writer of the book of Esther several times makes a point of saying how obedient she was to Mordecai. Esther wasn’t a spiritual leader, she was a queen. The word “God” isn’t even mentioned in her book, and she certainly didn’t instruct anybody in the Scriptures. Esther is probably one of the weakest examples you could come up with as support for women preaching, teaching, or exercising authority in the church.

The Women at Jesus’ Tomb, Priscilla, and Phoebe

The women at Jesus’ tomb were sort of Old Testament-ish, too, if you think about it. The church didn’t yet exist when they saw Jesus resurrected and ran back to tell the disciples about it. Still, this was not preaching, teaching, or holding authority over the disciples even in a non-church setting. This was a) giving eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and b) carrying a message from Jesus to the disciples. There was no commentary or instruction from the women to the disciples, just a report on what they had seen and a message of where Jesus and the disciples would meet up. And, really, don’t people usually see “messenger boys” (or girls) as subservient to the people they’re carrying messages between?

Priscilla (or Prisca) might be the best known Christian woman in the church era of the New Testament. When people try to use her as an argument for female preachers, teachers, and authority, they usually go to Acts 18:26 which says that she and her husband took Apollos aside and fully explained the gospel to him. This was a private meeting among the three of them, likely in their home over a meal or other casual circumstances, not preaching or teaching in the church. Additionally, the Bible makes absolutely no mention of how much, if any, of the actual “explaining” Priscilla did. It’s quite possible she just sat by as Aquila did the majority of the explaining and contributed only here and there or when Aquila forgot something.

Phoebe is mentioned once in the New Testament, in Romans 16:1-2. Paul commends her to the church at Rome and asks them to help her out because she has been a good servant of the church at Cenchreae. That the word “servant” can also be translated as “deaconess” in no way indicates that Phoebe (or Priscilla or any of the other women mentioned in Romans 16) preached to or taught men or exercised authority over men, despite the fact that male deacons today might do such things. The Greek word diakonos simply means “servant.” Acts 6:1-6 gives us a glimpse at some of the services the early deacons likely provided- “waiting tables” and meeting the physical needs of the believers. The apostles even drew a distinction between their preaching of the word and the need for others to minister to the material needs of the people.

And one more thing about Priscilla, Phoebe, and the other women of Romans 16: Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote the book of Romans? Paul. Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Paul. Would the Holy Spirit have led Paul in Romans 16 to praise women who were rebelling against His Word in 1 Timothy 2? Have you ever known God, anywhere in Scripture, to praise people who unrepentantly break His Word? Would it make any sense, logically, for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?

Would it make any sense for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?

God does not contradict Himself. God’s Word does not contradict itself. If He gives us an explicit command, biographical details of a Bible character’s life do not override that command, and we are to obey it.

While there are numerous, important ways God wants Christian women to serve Him in the church, the Bible is clear that we are not to preach to or teach men or exercise authority over men in the assembly of believers. We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.

We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.

Additional Resources:

Bad Examples of Women Pastors (But Great Examples of Godly Women) by Gabe Hughes

Rock Your Role

Deaconesses and Female Deacons

Michelle Lesley

The role of women in the church. It can be a sticky wicket sometimes, you know? Some things are pretty clear. Like, women aren’t to pastor churches. That’s clear in Scripture. Complementarians and egalitarians disagree on this point for various reasons, but none of those reasons include disagreeing on what a pastor is. Both camps pretty much agree that the pastor is the primary undershepherd of the church.

But sometimes, the sticking point is the fact that, even within our own camp, we disagree, or have different perspectives on, the definition of a term. And that can leave doctrinally sound, complementarian, brothers and sisters in Christ in a bit of a quandary. We start off with the same orthodoxy but end up with differing orthopraxies.

Such is the case with the question of women serving as deacons or deaconesses. Different churches define these terms differently. But what does the Bible say?

We find the English word deacon in only two passages in the New Testament: in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, where God spells out the biblical qualifications for deacons, and in Philippians 1:1, Paul’s greeting to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.”. Although the English word “deacon” isn’t used in this passage, a significant sector of Christian thought considers Acts 6:1-6 to be a description of the appointment of the first deacons in the New Testament church. In fact, this idea is so widely accepted that one reliable English translation titles this passage with the section heading “The First Seven Deacons Appointed”.

The Greek word διάκονος (diákonos), “deacon,” used or implied in these passages, simply means “servant” and “a waiter- at table or in other menial duties”. It comes from the root διάκω (diákō), which means “to run on errands,” and involves neither teaching nor authority. As you can see, this is a position of humility, anonymity, and servanthood, not power, influence, and rulership. We can see this from the description of the duties of the seven chosen men – presumably the first deacons – in Acts, who “waited on tables” providing food for the church’s widows.

Most churches would basically be in agreement with all of this (at least “on paper”) up to this point. Where we start to diverge is, how does this flesh itself out in practice in the local church body? Though there are undoubtedly more, I’ve run into five main perspectives on the diaconate in the church (the descriptors that follow are only general touchstones based solely on my own personal experience, they are not universally definitive / applicable. I gotta call them something, folks.) :

  • The traditional Southern Baptist perspective: The office of deacon exists and is restricted to men. Deacons must meet the biblical qualifications for the office, and are set apart to the diaconate by way of the ordination process (nomination, examination, voting, and the laying on of hands). There is no category of deaconess. All Christians are expected to be servants.
  • John MacArthur’s perspective: Because diákonos means “servant,” and all Christians are to be servants, all church members who serve in some way are deacons. There is no office, position, or official title of deacon.
  • The Baptistic hybrid perspective: Various blendings of the traditional Southern Baptist and John MacArthur perspectives. Some churches have the traditional, ordained male diaconate with a separate, non-ordained, less formal group of women deaconesses who see to the tangible needs of women and children when called upon by the deacons. Some churches have a group of non-ordained deacons and deaconesses a bit more set apart than the “everybody’s a deacon” perspective. The deacons generally minister to men and the deaconesses to women and children, or each deacon or deaconess is attached to a specific ministry in the church (deaconess of media, deacon of benevolence ministry, etc.)
  • The progressive – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in “mainstream” (i.e. theologically liberal) Protestant churches. The office of deacon does exist and is open to both men and women who undergo the same ordination process, perform the same duties, hold the same positions of authority (if any), etc. There is no need for a separate category of deaconess.
  • The Charismatic – egalitarian perspective: Usually found in Charismatic churches with female “pastors” or co-“pastors”. The formal office or position of both deacon and deaconess exist and may operate somewhat independently from one another. Both deacons and deaconesses seem to function as elders in some ways. Deaconesses often operate in a “ruling elders meets women’s ministry” sort of way.

The two final categories are obviously unbiblical because they are fruit of the poisonous tree (egalitarianism), but what about the first three?

The issue of deaconesses and female deacons recently placed itself in my path, so I wanted to take a fresh look at it to make sure my beliefs and position are as much in line with Scripture as possible. It never hurts to do that, right? We grow in Christ, we grow in the Word, and we strive to increasingly align with Scripture accordingly. Let me share with you where I currently am on all of this in case it might help as you think through your own beliefs.

I continue to hold to the “traditional Southern Baptist perspective” on the diaconate. I think the Bible more robustly supports this perspective than the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives for the following reasons:

  • I have long said on the issue of women pastors and elders that if you will take out the chapter and verse markings and look at 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 as one continuous stream of thought (as it was originally written), the passage starts off by describing who is not qualified for the office of elder (women) and why, followed by who is qualified for the office of elder (men) and how. I do not usually extend that passage to include 3:8-13, because what I’m usually asked about is women preaching and pastoring, not women being deacons. But when dealing with the topic of women serving as deacons, there is no reason not to include 3:8-13 in that continuous stream of thought (i.e. women are excluded in 2:11-15, qualified men are described in 3:1-13), and every reason to include it, as the word “likewise” in verse 8 indicates that 8-13 is part of the same thought as 2:11-3:7.
  • The word “likewise” in 3:8 also indicates the similarity of 3:8-13 to the form and content of 3:1-7. There’s no transition or contrast between the two passages indicating that “pastor/elder is a set apart office for qualified men only” in 1-7, but “deacon is not a set apart office for qualified men only” in 8-13. In fact, “likewise” would seem to indicate to the contrary – that they are both set apart offices of the church for qualified men only.
  • Chapter 3, verses 1-2 speak of deacons as husbands with wives, indicating that deacons are men. If Paul meant that women were qualified for the office of deacon, there is a way to make that clear in Greek. He differentiates between “wives” and “women in general” in other passages – why not here? And if he meant that women could be deacons, why not make that crystal clear in 3:8-13, since he just said basically the same things about elders being the husband of one wife in 3:2-5? (And we certainly use that qualification to help prove that only men can be pastors/elders, don’t we?)
  • I think the preponderance of evidence points to the seven men of Acts 6 being deacons, or at least the precedent for deacons, regardless of whether this was an impromptu, temporary assemblage of men or whether they served the church on a permanent basis. They were a group of men, set apart to serve. No women were appointed. This was the example later codified and explained in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.
  • If Phoebe, or any of the other women of Romans 16, were considered “deacons” on par with the seven men in Acts 6 or the parameters of 1 Timothy 3:8-13, why would translators not simply render Romans 16:1 as “deacon” instead of servant? Choosing those two different words in those two different passages seems to draw a distinction between someone who is qualified and set apart to the office of deacon and any random Christian who serves in some way.
  • To say that all Christians are to serve, therefore all Christians are deacons is imprecise and confusing. All Christians are also to share the gospel. Should we therefore say that all Christians are evangelists in the Ephesians 4:11-12 sense?
  • Look at the widows of godly character in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. These are godly women who, in addition to having served their families well, have a history of serving the church prior to being widowed. Notice verse 11: “having a reputation for good works: if she…has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” Does this passage – just two chapters after qualifications for deacons – indicate in any way that these women were set apart as, or carried the title of “deacon” or “deaconess”? Does it indicate that women need to be set apart as deacons / deaconesses or bear the title of “deacon” or “deaconess” in order to serve in these ways? No. The women of 1 Timothy 5 took it upon themselves to fill the needs of the saints they were aware of – no office or title needed, just as most Christian women continue to do today.

Now, I say all of that to explain how I arrived at the beliefs and position I hold on this issue. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to be construed to mean that I think those who hold to the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives are wrong, unbiblical, heretical, or false teachers. Not at all.

I stand shoulder to shoulder, without a second thought about it, with many who hold the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives. I don’t think either of those perspectives, as I’ve described and understand them, are unbiblical. Personally, I would have no problem joining a church that held to either of those perspectives. My main point of divergence with those two perspectives is that calling women who serve “deacons” or “deaconesses” – because of the wide array of definitions that can be attached to those two terms – is confusing and could lead someone to think a church is doing something unbiblical when it actually is not.

Certainly, it is biblically right and good for women – individually or as a set aside group, titled or untitled – to act as servants, care for widows, run errands, wait tables, and carry out menial tasks in service to their brothers and sisters in Christ. We see Paul commending Phoebe and the other women of Romans 16 for doing these very sorts of things. In fact, most Christian women who are faithful church members are already doing things like that. The Bible says “serve one another,” so every Christian ought to be serving the church in some way.

But because of the current confusion and different perspectives in the church over what deacons actually are and who may or may not serve as a deacon, if a church wishes to set aside a group of women as servants, the pastor and other leadership might want to consider call them something other than deacons or deaconesses. Just a thought.

In the end, whatever our position on the finer points of deacons, female deacons, and deaconesses, I think we can all agree that, as brothers and sisters, we are all to serve one another in love and humility.

In the end, whatever our position on the finer points of deacons, female deacons, and deaconesses, I think we can all agree that, as brothers and sisters, we are all to serve one another in love and humility.

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

1 Peter 4:11, Mark 10:45, Philippians 2:3-4

Postscript:

The issue of women serving as deacons or deaconesses arose for me after my most recent request for recommendations of doctrinally sound churches to add to my list of Reader Recommended Churches. I noticed that a significant number of the recommended churches listed female deacons or deaconesses on their websites, and that these churches also seemed to be doctrinally sound, usually Reformed or Calvinistic churches, often pastored by graduates of The Master’s Seminary – churches I would normally add to the list in a heartbeat.

In the past, I’ve received a handful of recommendations for churches with female deacons, but they were all of the “progressive-” or “Charismatic- egalitarian perspectives,” and were excluded from the list for that reason. Therefore, my initial inclination upon seeing women listed as “deacons” or “deaconesses” on a church website was to exclude these churches from the list.

But because there is such a dearth of doctrinally sound churches available out there, I didn’t want to exclude any church that didn’t, biblically speaking, have to be excluded. So I revisited the issue of deaconesses and female deacons.

Going forward, I’ll be including these doctrinally sound churches with deaconesses / female deacons (as long as they appear to hold to the “John MacArthur” or “hybrid” perspectives). I’ve made a note on the list that some of the churches listed have deaconesses / female deacons, and that if a searcher is uncomfortable with that idea, or has questions about the church’s position, she should ask the pastor about it.

Additional Resources:

Can women serve as deacons in the church? at GotQuestions

Was Phoebe a Deaconess? at Grace to You

Can Women Serve as Deacons? at WWUTT

The Office of Deacon by New Beginnings Church

Qualified Servants for the Church–Deacons, Part 1 by John MacArthur

“No. Women May NOT be Pastors.” But Can They be Deacons? at Truth+Fire

Complementarianism, Rock Your Role

Rock Your Role: Oh No She Di-int! Priscilla Didn’t Preach, Deborah Didn’t Dominate, and Esther Wasn’t an Egalitarian

Michelle Lesley

Rock Your Role is a series examining the “go to” and hot button Scriptures that relate to and help us understand our role as women in the church. Don’t forget to prayerfully consider our three key questions
as you read.

How can you say women aren’t to preach to, teach, or hold authority over men in the church? What about Deborah, Esther, Huldah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and the women at Jesus’ tomb? Didn’t they all preach to men, teach them, or hold authority over them?

That’s one of the arguments often put forth by people who reject what God’s word plainly says about the biblical role of women in the church. And the short answer is very simple: Yes and no, and so what?

But maybe a longer answer would be better.

First of all, there’s a proper way and an improper way to understand Scripture. We want to make sure we understand Scripture the proper way. When we look to Scripture to find out how we should behave – what we should do and not do – we do not look first, or primarily, at the biographies of people in the Bible and what they did or didn’t do, and model ourselves after them.

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of Scripture: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive passages describe something that happened: Noah built an ark. Esther became queen. Paul got shipwrecked. These passages simply tell us what happened to somebody. Prescriptive passages are commands or statements to obey. Don’t lie. Share the gospel. Forgive others.

If we wanted to know how to have a godly marriage, for example, we would look at passages like Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 7, and Exodus 20:14,17. These are all passages that clearly tell us what to do and what not to do in order to have a godly marriage.

What we would not do is look at David’s and Solomon’s lives and conclude that polygamy is God’s design for marriage. We would not read about Hosea and assume that God wants Christian men to marry prostitutes. We would not read the story of the woman at the well and think that being married five times and then shacking up with number six is OK with Jesus.

When looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible.

And when looking for instruction about the role of women in the church, we look to clear, prescriptive passages which tell us what to do and what not to do, not descriptive passages about various women in the Bible.

Descriptive passages may support, but never trump, the clear instruction of prescriptive passages.

But just for funzies, let’s take a quick look at these ladies so often trotted out in defense of Christian women disobeying Scripture. (If you’re unclear as to what God’s word says about women’s role in the church, you might want to check out this article and this article before reading further.)

Deborah, Huldah, and Esther:

The very first thing we need to remember about these ladies is that they were under the old (Mosaic) covenant of the Old Testament, not the new (grace) covenant of the New Testament. There are a lot of things about the old covenant that no longer apply to Christians in the New Testament because Christ fulfilled the law of the old covenant (Bacon and poly-cotton blends, anyone?). Likewise, there are things about the new covenant that did not apply under the old covenant (The church? Evangelism? Nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.), or for which there are no reasonable precedents in the Old Testament because the church is a new covenant institution.

None of these women were pastors. None taught men the Scriptures in the church (or even temple) setting. None assumed authority over men in the church (or even the temple).

Deborah was a judge. She decided disputes between Israelites and discussed with Barak battle instructions that God had already revealed to him. When Barak refused to stand up and fight like a man, God used Deborah, a woman, to show him that another woman, Jael, would get the glory for killing Sisera. In a patriarchal society a woman in leadership and a female war hero would not have been seen by men or women as a positive thing, but rather as shaming men who were too cowardly to step up, lead, and protect their women and children.

Huldah was a prophetess. She was sent for during the reign of Josiah when the temple was being repaired and the priests hadn’t even been able to find the book of the law for years. Again, what does it say about the spiritual condition of the most important men in the country – the king and the high priest – when they, in a highly patriarchal society, have to humble themselves and seek out a woman to tell them what God says? Huldah repeated to them what God had told her, and that was it. Since we now have God’s written word and He no longer speaks through direct revelation this way, there is no parallel between Huldah and New Testament women preaching, teaching, and exercising authority.

Esther, under threat of death, couldn’t even talk to her own husband without his permission, so I’m not really sure why people seem to think she exercised any authority over men. In fact, the writer of the book of Esther several times makes a point of saying how obedient she was to Mordecai. Esther wasn’t a spiritual leader, she was a queen. The word “God” isn’t even mentioned in her book, and she certainly didn’t instruct anybody in the Scriptures. Esther is probably one of the weakest examples you could come up with as support for women preaching, teaching, or exercising authority in the church.

The Women at Jesus’ Tomb, Priscilla, and Phoebe

The women at Jesus’ tomb were sort of Old Testament-ish, too, if you think about it. The church didn’t yet exist when they saw Jesus resurrected and ran back to tell the disciples about it. Still, this was not preaching, teaching, or holding authority over the disciples even in a non-church setting. This was a) giving eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and b) carrying a message from Jesus to the disciples. There was no commentary or instruction from the women to the disciples, just a report on what they had seen and a message of where Jesus and the disciples would meet up. And, really, don’t people usually see “messenger boys” (or girls) as subservient to the people they’re carrying messages between?

Priscilla (or Prisca) might be the best known Christian woman in the church era of the New Testament. When people try to use her as an argument for female preachers, teachers, and authority, they usually go to Acts 18:26 which says that she and her husband took Apollos aside and fully explained the gospel to him. This was a private meeting among the three of them, likely in their home over a meal or other casual circumstances, not preaching or teaching in the church. Additionally, the Bible makes absolutely no mention of how much, if any, of the actual “explaining” Priscilla did. It’s quite possible she just sat by as Aquila did the majority of the explaining and contributed only here and there or when Aquila forgot something.

Phoebe is mentioned once in the New Testament, in Romans 16:1-2. Paul commends her to the church at Rome and asks them to help her out because she has been a good servant of the church at Cenchreae. That the word “servant” can also be translated as “deaconess” in no way indicates that Phoebe (or Priscilla or any of the other women mentioned in Romans 16) preached to or taught men or exercised authority over men, despite the fact that male deacons today might do such things. The Greek word diakonos simply means “servant.” Acts 6:1-6 gives us a glimpse at some of the services the early deacons likely provided- “waiting tables” and meeting the physical needs of the believers. The apostles even drew a distinction between their preaching of the word and the need for others to minister to the material needs of the people.

And one more thing about Priscilla, Phoebe, and the other women of Romans 16: Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote the book of Romans? Paul. Who – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Paul. Would the Holy Spirit have led Paul in Romans 16 to praise women who were rebelling against His Word in 1 Timothy 2? Have you ever known God, anywhere in Scripture, to praise people who unrepentantly break His Word? Would it make any sense, logically, for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?

Would it make any sense for Paul to praise in Romans 16 women who were habitually and rebelliously disobeying his instructions in 1 Timothy 2?

God does not contradict Himself. God’s Word does not contradict itself. If He gives us an explicit command, biographical details of a Bible character’s life do not override that command, and we are to obey it.

While there are numerous, important ways God wants Christian women to serve Him in the church, the Bible is clear that we are not to preach to or teach men or exercise authority over men in the assembly of believers. We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.

We are to follow in the footsteps of godly women like Esther, Priscilla, and all the others by humbly submitting to His Word and obeying it.

Additional Resources:

Bad Examples of Women Pastors (But Great Examples of Godly Women) by Gabe Hughes