Does Scripture Forbid a Woman From Teaching or Ruling a Church Congregation?

DOES SCRIPTURE FORBID A WOMAN FROM TEACHING OR RULING A CHURCH CONGREGATION?

By Ezekiel Kimosop

INTRODUCTION

Before the turn of the 19th Century this question was perhaps not even contemplated in the Christian traditions because churches across all denominations were unquestioningly led by men at the time. Today the ecclesial topologies have radically changed so that even among orthodox or conservative churches such as Anglicans and Presbyterians, women have been ordained as church ministers.

Some Evangelical traditions have been cautious on female ordination while others have flatly rejected the clamor for reforms to this end. I am aware that the issue of female ordination or church rule is quite divisive. I intend to approach my answer to the above question purely on what I can discern from my study of the Scriptures. This article therefore conveys my personal view on this question.  

BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

Let us begin by examining one of the leading passages of Scripture that perhaps holds the crux of the question. 

1 Timothy 2:12 (NKJV) states  "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." The NAB translation is similar to the NKJV but concludes with an emphatic "....she must be quiet."  The YLT contextualizes this text to the marriage setting, saying "and a woman I do not suffer [permit] to teach or to rule a husband, but to be in quietness."

My view is that there are two notable grounds that underlie the interpretation of this scripture text. Either Scripture does not permit women believers to teach or rule church congregations or that married women should not teach or rule if their husbands are present with them in the congregation. Some consider the latter position as a basis for excluding single or widowed women from the restriction.

One cardinal rule of Scripture interpretation is to examine the context of the Scripture passage. Our passage of context lies in 1 Timothy 2:1-15 where Paul was giving the Ephesian believers instructions on appropriate decorum in congregational worship gatherings. A brief survey through this passage would therefore be appropriate.

Paul first emphasizes on the significance of prayer in the Christian community (vv. 1-5). He observes that prayer should be offered for all men generally and specifically for those in authority (v. 2). He then marks out the pivotal position that Christ occupies in God's divine order. Jesus is described as the mediator [High Priest] between man and God. The ultimate purpose of prayer is to connect or reconcile sinful men to a holy God (vv. 5-6). Paul observes that this mediation resonates with his calling as an apostle to the Gentiles (v. 7). Notice the three key offices that Paul occupied as preacher, apostle, and teacher.

One may perhaps consider the opening statement as Paul's justification for the critical instruction that he was about to convey. Some may also construe it as a defense of his apostolic authority that some had doubted or questioned. Both persuasions are valid. 

The mention of two heretics in the preceding passage of 1 Tim. 1:19-20 is perhaps significant to the passage context. It appears that Hymenaeus and Alexander taught that the resurrection of believers had already taken place (cf. 2 Timothy 2:17). Alexander [if he was the same teacher mentioned in both texts of Scripture] had resisted Paul's ministry on another occasion (2 Timothy 4:14). Both heretics were excommunicated by Paul.

1 Timothy 2:12 therefore lies at the heart of Paul's emphasis on sound doctrine in a Christian congregational gathering. This can perhaps be understood as the apostolic setting for what he was about to convey. 

Now back to our passage of context.

The next section of the Scripture passage provides specific guidelines on worship in the New Testament church (1 Timothy 2:8-12). This is consistent with Paul's various instructions on the appointment of church leaders which he later outlines in greater detail (1 Timothy 3:1-13).

By raising holy hands, men are to worship God with purity of hearts and in faith (1 Timothy 2:9). The word "everywhere" suggests that all congregations in Ephesus or all churches in Paul's apostolic see were contemplated in this context. If we consider that this context applied to all New Testament churches, Paul's instructions would hinge on the universality of the application of the teachings of this passage.

The next address is directed to Christian women. This teaching concludes the passage (1 Timothy 2:9-12). Women are instructed on modest or seemly dressing (1 Timothy 2:9-10). The negations are spelt out in detail. Some scholars say that temple prostitutes dedicated to the worship of goddess Diana (Greek: Artemis) in Ephesus dressed expensively to attract men and there was fear that Christian women would be sending confusing signals to men if they adopted the pattern.

This "dress-code" instruction has been cited by some as evidence of the local application of the teaching given its cultural import. 

The second instruction to women is perhaps the most controversial of all Paul's teachings in the passage. 1 Timothy 2:11-13 says: 

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submersion. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self control." (NKJV).  

Paul exhorts that the believing woman should learn in silence or quietness and with all subjection or obedience. The Greek word ἡσυχία [hesychios] for "silence" or "quietness" in v.12 describes a state of stillness, quiet or tranquility. No distinction is drawn on the marital status of the woman at this point. However, a cross reference to the Corinthian instructions reveals that married women were contemplated in both contexts (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

The next verse carries the famous prohibition on Christian women from teaching or ruling men in the congregation. It is instructive that the Greek word γυνή [goo-nay] for "woman" can also refer to "wife".  Instead, apostle Paul teaches that women should be in quietness. Some have attempted to water down the theological implications of this text by arguing that only Christian husbands were contemplated by Paul. They insist that not all male believers were the subject of the exhortation in this context. My view is that it may perhaps matters little whether we translate the ancient Greek male noun ἀνήρ [aner] as "man" or "husband". The Greek word ἄνθρωπος [anthropos] can also refer to a person or mankind in general. The context of Paul's exhortation suggests that male believers were in contemplation in either case. I am therefore hesitant to resort to splitting hairs in this context!

The second passage that speaks into this theological question is 1 Timothy 3:1-7: 

"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not [d]covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (NKJV). 

This passage should be consolidated and read together with the preceding passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-14 which we earlier examined. The two texts are inextricably intertwined in theological essence. Under the former passage, Paul was building his theological thesis on leadership structure and authority in the church. In the latter case, he provides explicit instructions on the constitution of two critical church offices - the bishop, elder or overseer. The qualifications for the office of deacon are spelt out in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. In both cases, Scripture reveals that these offices are reserved for spiritually mature married Christian men. Women are therefore excluded from the nomination lists for these two church leadership positions. 

Some Pauline critics have argued that these instructions were informed by Paul's personal prejudice against women! Others claim that this passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive and is skewed in favor of male leadership in a primitive society in which women were subjugated by a patriarchal culture. They insist that where women leadership is recognized, the contemporary Christian society should be at liberty to prescribe qualifications for women leadership in line with the above passage. Terran Williams, a leading Christian feminism advocate argues thus:

"It is possible for discoveries and advances in society to challenge a long-held interpretation of Scripture…As the industrial revolution and the first waves of what would become the Woman’s Liberation Movement swept through the West, for the first time ever women were given a chance to show their comparable intelligence and capacity to men. Instead of seeing this as a threat, this is in fact an opportunity for us to revisit Scripture itself with the question: what have we been missing all along" [1]

Tom Sculthorpe in his critical review of Terran Williams' writing notably identifies the deep eisegesis that informs Williams' authorship of the liberal works. He marks out Williams' use of women liberation literature as the cultural lenses through which he interprets Scripture in a manner that contradicts the text. [2]. Scripture however should be construed in its holistic divine essence as God's voice to His covenant people in all ages of human civilization. Scripture writers were simply vessel at God's disposal. The text of Scripture is an inspired piece of literature that should be revered by Christian communities in all ages. 

The use of the Greek male singular pronoun αὐτός for "he" in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is unmistakable. This rules out any doubts on the intended gender of the candidates for the church offices. This does not however suggest or imply that Scripture places any doubts on the intelligence and capacity of Christian women. It simply prescribes God's divine order for the church. Thomas Schreiner succinctly opines that "the ministries women do become involved in...should be complimentary and supportive of the male leadership of the church." [3]. 

LOCAL VERSUS UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES

The above Scripture passages raises a number of fundamental questions. Did Paul intend a local or universal application for his teaching? Was Paul's instructions exclusively intended for the Ephesian, Corinthian, and Cretan believers in their respective contexts? Is the local application context consistent with the holistic teaching of Scripture? 

Local application proponents insist that the issues addressed by Paul were specific to the respective Christian communities within their first century cultural contexts. They argue that Paul was simply dealing with "disorder" problems in Corinth and Ephesus and did not intend that the restrictions on women should apply to all churches in all ages. They further argue that the Ephesus problem was similar in a number of respects to the "disorder" in Corinth. They are however unable to explain the genesis of Paul's restriction of women in church leadership in Titus 1:6-7 since no theological context was supplied by Paul in this case. 

The universal application proponents hold that the instructions of Scripture are of universal and timeless application and should not be dismissed at the altar of cultural exigency. They argue that Paul's apostolic pronouncements relating to the three churches are theologically prescriptive and should inform the constitution of church leadership and governance structures in all ages since Calvary. They consider the statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as evidence of the universal validity of the instructions. This text says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." (NKJV). 

Some conservative Christian traditions have taken this text as evidence of the exclusion of married women from speaking in a church congregation. Others consider the silence prohibition to be of local application since it contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:5 which contemplates that women can pray and prophesy in the plenary gathering of a Christian community. Besides, the administration of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11, 14 does not contemplate gender distinctions. Denny Burk observes a notable contradiction on the universal application of the silence prohibition. He opines:

For starters, it would create a hopeless contradiction with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which indicates that women were “praying and prophesying” in the church. Paul doesn’t rebuke their praying and prophesying in church. On the contrary, he gives them instructions on how to do it in the right way—in a way that allows them to speak but that at the same time honors male headship. [4]

Burk acknowledges the universal implications of the prophecy in the Book of Joel quoted in Acts 2:17. Besides, an absolute prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:34 would openly contradict 1 Corinthians 11, 12, 14. 

Richard B. Hays observes that a theological contradiction would stand out between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 if the silence prohibition is elevated to a universal caveat. He notes: 

With respect to the issue of women’s public leadership, there are good theological reasons to insist that we should be guided by Paul’s vision of Christian worship in which the gifts of the Spirit are given to all members of the church, men and women alike, for the building up of the community. The few New Testament texts that seek to silence women (such as 1 Cor. 14:34–35, and 1 Tim. 2:11–15) should not be allowed to override this vision. [5]

Denny Burk observes that Kays' egalitarian approach violates the inspiration of the two texts since it implies that the reader should choose which between the two texts rightly conveys the mind of God in this context. Kays' observation nevertheless brings to the fore the open contradiction that would arise from the implications of a literal treatment of the "absolute prohibition" on the silence of women in the church. God cannot assign spiritual gifts to women and silence them at the same time! 

D. A. Carson in advocating against a woman teaching in the church argues that Paul's instruction on the silence of women implies that while women may prophecy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophecies. [6]. Carson's argument is however informed by the complementarian view - that women should exercise the gift of prophecy with utmost care lest they contradict male authority in the church. It is intended to assert the male headship principle in the strictest sense. 

It is difficult to comprehend how this violation would arise given that unlike the New Testament church situation, the sealed cannon of Scripture became available to the church following its canonization by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Besides, Evangelic traditions generally agree that prophetic foretelling was effectively closed and the congregational exhortation, admonition  and edification of God's people through the word of God constitutes prophetic forthtelling  - speaking the truth of God for the present moments rather than predicting future events. The preacher therefore reveals the mind of God to his hearers in each particular context based on the revelation and authority of Scripture. Scripture cautions that believers are to judge every preaching or teaching in line with the Berea principle. My view is that this noble task falls on all believers without gender distinctions. 

The text of Scripture therefore remains the basis for the objective evaluation of the faithfulness of any teaching in church. Having dispensed with the theological implications of the "silence" prohibition, we shall now examine Paul's arguments on God's divine order for leadership in the church.

How should we interpret the leadership command in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 when read together with 1 Timothy 2:8-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:1-16? This is a critical question the seeks to expound on the theological foundation of Christian governance and ministry service rolled together. 

There are three theological implications that naturally flow from the study of the above texts. 

First, Paul appeals to the law in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Which law is this? Some scholars have suggested that Paul was making reference to the Jewish law in general to provide a precedent or justification for its application within the cultural context. Others tie Paul's instruction to the Roman law under which women had limited public roles. They argue that Paul sought to align the church to existing social customs in order to preserve order. 

Should this legal precedence apply to every generation and culture through the church ages? 

Some scholars suggest that the instructions conveyed were intended to bind the Ephesian Christian community. The fact that the man is head over the woman in the same manner that Christ is head over the church is therefore an established tradition with a divine footing (1 Corinthians 11:3). Most Christian traditions agree that the teaching on head coverings conveyed in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 lies within the local application context. Some traditions have attempted to enforce it with little success given the contemporary cultural dynamics on liberal dressing.  

Secondly, Paul's reference to the creation order in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 is replicated in the Ephesian context. Notice that Paul appeals to the order of creation in the concluding section of our passage of context. 1 Timothy 2:13 says in part: "...For Adam was formed then Eve..." 

Does Paul's reference to the creation order suggest that the restriction in 1 Timothy 2:12 is of universal application? 

We should keep this question in mind as we delve through the relevant texts. Paul goes a step further to appeal to the order of the fall of man saying "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14, NKJV). Some consider this analogy as a second blow to the local application context on male headship. They insist that the ramifications of the fall of Adam and Eve are universal in scope and cannot be limited to the Ephesian, Cretan or Corinthian Christian community contexts. 

Thirdly, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:16 suggests that his instructions were intended for universal application. He argues that it was a universal custom in all churches that women are to be subject to male authority. The teaching on covering the head was simply a confirmation of God's order of rule. It is further evident in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 that women were not eligible for appointment to the offices of elder and deacon. This is also amplified in Titus 1:6-9, a text intended for the Christian community in the Island of Crete.

It is instructive that the three Epistles conveying the above apostolic instructions were written to distinct first century ethnic societies in different geographical and cultural locations. While some may consider the Corinthian case to mirror on a "local-incident" context in view of Paul's response to the Corinthian conflict, the Cretan and Ephesian contexts are not informed by any known conflict cases that warranted apostolic intervention. Their cultural setups cannot therefore be conflated. 

Besides, the three societies were geographically separated by hundreds of miles! The distance between Corinth and Ephesus is estimated at 478km while Crete to Ephesus covers about 730km. The Island of Crete is approximately 468km from the port city of Corinth. The city of Ephesus was located in Asia Minor in present day Turkey while Crete is an Island on the Mediterranean Sea that retains its name. The city of Corinth was located in southern Greece in the region of Achaia. It is difficult to conclude that the three societies were culturally synonymous in the first century AD.  

It is undeniable that the cultural topologies in contemporary African Christianity are heavily influenced by Western libertarian philosophies. Some orthodox church traditions have been compelled to revise their liturgy and practices to conform to modern cultural exigencies. Others continue to face sustained onslaught and are on the verge of collapse. What should inform our Christian traditions and practice? My view is that the word of God in the sealed cannon of Scripture should be the sole instrument for addressing church governance issues. 

CONCLUSION

Back to our question...Does the Bible forbid women from teaching and ruling a church congregation? This concluding section conveys my personal reflection drawn from my study of the relevant passages of Scripture. I wish to break down my response to this question as follows:

1) Should women rule or preside over a church congregation?

My view is that a church congregation ought to be ruled by spiritually mature male believers. Novices or recent converts are not permitted to exercise spiritual authority in the church (1 Timothy 3:6).  However, if peradventure no mature male believers are available, or those present are unwilling to lead, my view is that mature Christian women with leadership skills may hold brief until the incapacity is rectified. They should disciple men and equip them to lead. I can distill this principle from Acts 18:24-28 where Apollos was mentored by a faithful Christian couple called Priscilla and Aquila. Some scholars consider the prominence of Priscilla to have been asserted by Luke, given the order of names in some Bible translations. 

Some have labelled this approach as the Deborah principle because Deborah, the only female judge and prophetess, was compelled to step into battle when Barak was reluctant to lead Israel to battle without Deborah accompanying him (Judges 4:8-9). The pair sung a beautiful doxology in Judges 5 in celebration of their teamwork. Barak is however mentioned in the hall of heroes in Hebrews 11.

2) Should women preach in a church congregation?

My view is that since women can proclaim Christ in the same way that men can, nothing in Scripture forbids a woman from speaking or preaching in a church congregation or exercising her spiritual gifts provided that she does not rule the congregation (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). This interpretation has been accepted by some Evangelical traditions as a compromise position under which women can serve as pastors in churches without violating 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 and other relevant passages of Scripture that exclude women from serving as elders or overseers. Other traditions identify Matthew 28:19-20 as a composite command for all believers irrespective of gender. Still others consider Mary Magdalene's encounter with the Risen Christ at the tomb as evidence that women are empowered to proclaim the gospel unhindered (John 20:11-18).  

I am further persuaded that gifted women should be permitted to serve in the church provided that they submit to male oversight authority in accordance with Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-7). Their pastoral ordination or licensing certificates should, in my view, contain a submission clause conveying this caveat. In this way, female pastors will faithfully serve Christ without violating Scripture. I am aware that sections of conservative Evangelical and Pentecostal traditions will sharply disagree with this position.

3) Should women be ordained as overseers or bishops of a church congregation or communion?

While each denomination or tradition has its set of regulations by which they run their churches, my view is that it is unbiblical to install a woman as bishop or principal overseer of a Christian congregation or church communion. This would violate several texts and passages of Scripture (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23; 1 Timothy 2:12-14: Titus 1:6-9). My view is that it is difficult to relegate express commands of Scripture to silence under the quest of gender inclusivity. Again, I am aware that some Christian traditions would sharply disagree with this view. 

4) Can a woman serve as a church elder?

Scripture expressly disqualifies a Christian woman from serving as a church elder (Titus 1:6-7; 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Christian women, whether single or married, are therefore not eligible to serve in that capacity. Some churches consider the wives of elders as deaconesses because they minister to elders. This discretion however appears to violate the restrictions outlined in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

In conclusion, my view is that Christian women can and should prophecy, speak, preach and witness for Christ in the church. They should participate in worship and church activities with the exception that they cannot rule the church congregation. They speak the mind of God in the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the same manner that men should. They cannot however preside over or rule a church congregation in the capacity of church elders, bishops, or overseers because this would expressly violate Scripture. 

This summarizes my theological view on this question. 

Shalom

REFERENCES

[1] Terran Williams, How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy, (Cape Town, South Africa, The Spiritual Bakery, 2022).  

[2] Tom Sculthorpe, "Book Review on Terran Williams, How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy" in Eikon: A Journal for Biblical Anthropology, in The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, https://cbmw.org/journal/book-review-terran-williams-how-god-sees-women-the-end-of-patriarchy/

[3] Thomas Schreiner, "The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 222.

[4] Denny Burk, "Must Women Be Silent in Churches? (1 Corinthians 14:34)" in 9marks.org, https://www.9marks.org/article/must-women-be-silent-in-churches/ accessed 10 September 2025 at 1025 GMT. 

[5] Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1997), 249.

[6] D. A Carson, “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 140–53.

© Ezekiel Kimosop 2020