10 Bad "Biblical" Arguments Against Women Preaching

Theobro "gotcha" statements, rebutted

Christian patriarchy (no matter what name it goes by) gets many things wrong. Prominent among them are these ten “gotcha” statements often repeated on social media and other forums:

1. “God established the rule of men over women before the Fall. Male rule is not the result of sin but God’s good design, so the church must perpetuate it.”

Ironically, those who advocate for a “plain reading” of 1 Timothy 2:12 go against the plain reading of Genesis 3:16, which clearly states that male rule is a consequence of the Fall, like death and decay, pain in childbearing, thorns, and thistles (all of which most Christians aggressively battle). If you brushed your teeth this morning, you were fighting decay. Battling patriarchy should be no less controversial:

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

This is where patriarchy begins. It’s right there in the text. Claims that God really meant, “He was always meant to rule you, but now he will be mean about it,” show that they are comfortable “reading between the lines” when they want. Yet, this claim does not hold water, as I show in detail in “Does Adam’s Creation Before Eve Put Men In Charge?” and “Another Claim That Patriarchy Is God’s Plan Bites The Dust” (which also covers the “But women were not priests in ancient Israel” argument).

2. “Deborah was only God’s prophet and Israel’s judge because it was a time of apostasy, and God couldn’t find a willing man.”

The story of Deborah occurs in Judges 4-5, a book with twenty-one chapters. Israel’s apostasy gets worse as the book goes on, yet God never again has trouble raising up a male judge after Deborah’s time. Later in the Hebrew Scriptures, things get so bad that God lets the Assyrians conquer the Northern Kingdom and the Babylonians the Southern Kingdom. Yet, God doesn’t have trouble raising up male prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah. Weird, huh? (Of course, God also raised up Huldah).

“Israel’s princes” were perfectly willing volunteers under Deborah’s leadership (Judges 5:2, 9), and Barak is in the Hebrews “hall of fame” (Heb. 11:32-33). Learn much more about Deborah as a Moses-figure, whose life doesn’t make sense in a “biblical patriarchy” model, here.

3. “No woman is named a ‘pastor’ in the New Testament.”

This is an odd one because it assumes only pastors can preach and teach (but this is why men like Albert Mohler now claim that “pastor” is “the preaching office”). Let’s follow the premise, though: there is not a single named woman in the New Testament called a pastor.

True.

There are also no men called “pastor.”

4. “There is no narrative in Acts or the epistles describing any woman preaching in a church during a Sunday worship service.”

Right. There is also no such narrative involving any man, unless we say that Acts 20:7-11 describes Paul preaching a Sunday sermon in a church. If we concede that claim, then we have zero women but only one man. That’s not a lot of data.

5. “There is no ‘preaching’ language used of any woman in the New Testament.”

First, the prophet Anna proclaimed Jesus as the redeemer in the Jerusalem Temple. Slow down and think about this: a woman with the title “prophet,” situated in God’s holy place, “spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” (Luke 2:36-38). To “all,” not just women, and not just one man in a private conversation at home.

“Spoke about” is from the Greek λαλέω (laleō). It’s a common word for speech, but often conveys “teaching” or “preaching” in the New Testament when the context is, well, like the context we just saw with Anna. It is the word translated “tell” in the angel’s command to the apostles to “tell the people about this new life” in Acts 5:20. When the apostles do just that, Luke describes it this way: “Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5:42).

It is also the word translated “speak to” in Acts 11:20, which then describes their speech as “telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.” Finally, it is the word the NIV and ESV translate as “teach” in Titus 2:1, “You, however, must teach (λάλει) what is appropriate to sound doctrine.” Learn more in my article, “Prophet Anna Set Precedent for the Apostles.”

Second, Priscilla and her husband Aquila took the famed preacher Apollos aside and “explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). “Explained” is from the Greek ἐκτίθημι (ektithēmi). Contextually, it carries the sense of teaching and expounding. Luke used it to describe Paul’s preaching in Acts 28:23 (“He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God …”). Learn more in my article, “Priscilla: Teacher or Sandwich Maker for Aquilla & Apollos?”

Third, Jesus commissioned Mary Magdalene to preach the resurrection after he waited for Peter and the beloved disciple to leave (John 20:1-18). The NIV says Mary “told them that he had said these things to her” (John 20:18). This is from the Greek word ἀπαγγέλλω (apangellō), which is most literally an announcement. Mary announced.

The NIV translates the same word as “preached” in Paul’s testimony in Acts 26:20 (“First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds”).

In Hebrews 2:12, it is the word translated “declare,” which describes Jesus teaching us about God (“I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises”).

And in 1 John 1:2-3, it is the word translated “proclaim” (The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us”). Mary preached/declared/proclaimed. Learn more about her ministry in “Proof That Mary Magdalene's Story Means Women Can Preach.”

6. “The fall in Genesis 3 is about a violation of God’s pattern.”

John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarize this complementarian position:

Satan’s subtlety is that he knew the created order God had ordained for the good of the family, and he deliberately defied it by ignoring the man and taking up his dealings with the woman. Satan put her in the position of spokesman, leader, and defender.¹

Thomas Schreiner adds:

Eve took the initiative in responding to the Serpent, and Adam let her do so. Thus, the appeal to Genesis 3 reminds readers of what happens when humans undermine God’s ordained pattern.²

So, if a woman perceives that God or a supernatural being of some kind is coming to her with a message, she must say, “Hold on — I have to run this by my husband or a male authority figure?” Or she must tell the supernatural messenger, “It is a sin for you to approach me — you need to go to my man, who will not be deceived”?

Got it. So Gabriel sinned when he went to the Virgin Mary? And she sinned when she didn’t say, “This is bizarre. You need to speak to Joseph,” or “My father,” or “My synagogue leader,” or “My cousin Zechariah, the priest” (Luke 1:26-38)? What happened when Gabriel and Mary undermined “God’s ordained pattern”?

7. If you have to use background material rather than a plain reading of a text, your interpretation is just a matter of twisting scripture to say what you want.

Many patriarchists object to the use of cultural background studies for enhancing our understanding of Bible passages, like I used in “Goddess Worship and 1 Timothy 2” and “Is Artemis to Blame in 1 Timothy 2? Yes, But No.” But how many of them would command obedience to this without any contextualization or explanation of things not inherent in the “plain reading”:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. — Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (ESV)

If your instinct is to say, “But that’s Old Testament,” but at the same time, you feel like women today can’t preach because ancient Israel only had male priests, that might be something you should get curious about.

Meanwhile, what about New Testament texts telling slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5), women to have their heads covered in church (1 Cor. 11:5-6), men to have short hair (1 Cor. 11:14), women to refrain from wearing braided hair or gold jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9), to name a few? If your answer to any of these things is, “Well, let me explain the context,” then why couldn’t someone else say, “Your interpretation is just a matter of twisting scripture to claim what you want”?

When fundamentalists and conservative complementarians debate angry atheists, they are suddenly very contextual as they deal with “clobber passages” that atheists use to discredit the Bible. Learn more about this in “Atheists & Complementarians: Flat Readings Make Strange Bedfellows.”

8. If Jesus wanted women to preach, why did he only have male disciples?

He didn’t. Jesus did call twelve male disciples, reflecting the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel. The symbolism is obvious: Jesus is the new Israel, ushering in the restoration of the tribes predicted by the prophets.

However, these were not the only disciples in the Gospels, nor did the descriptor “disciple” die out in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Tabatha/Dorcas is called a disciple [μαθήτρια (mathētria] in Acts 9:36. The Gospels present several groups of disciples, including the twelve (often literally called “the twelve”), the seventy-two (Luke 10:1-20), and the women (Luke 8:1-3).

The women funded Jesus’ ministry, followed him everywhere, and were faithful to the end when one of the twelve betrayed Jesus, one denied knowing him, and most of the others ran away. Read all about the women disciples and how they prove to be faithful, often outshining men, in Holly Carey’s excellent book Women Who Do: Female Disciples in the Gospels.

Further, sometimes when patriarchists say “disciple,” they really mean “apostle.” But not only does Mary Magdalene meet the conditions for apostleship, Paul literally calls Junia an apostle in Romans 16:7 (and an excellent one, at that). Junia is a woman, not a man. Second, Junia is “outstanding among the apostles,” not merely “well known to the apostles.” Third, the term “apostle,” when applied to Junia, means exactly what we all know it means, not simply “messenger.”

9. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 specifically prohibits a woman from preaching in a Sunday worship service.

Goodness, no. There are zero markers in this text that would specify so narrowly that a woman is prohibited from doing this one particular activity, but nothing else (book writing, hymn writing, Sunday School, small group, counseling, Bible college, missionary/street evangelism, etc). The author could have easily constricted his language to group instruction on Sundays (as he did in 1 Cor. 11-14), but he did not. Further, this is a location-and time-bound restriction (see my “Garrrrr! Does 1 Timothy 2 Establish Permanent Male Rule?”).

In the context of the letter, the writer does not want the woman or women in mind doing any kind of teaching, period. Instead, they must learn. There is no allowance for a woman teaching in private, or a woman teaching one man rather than a group of men. The passage says, “I do not permit a woman [singular] to teach or domineer a man” [singular] (see my “More Than Preaching is at Stake for Women in the 1 Timothy 2 Battleground”).

This is not a problem for contemporary hardcore patriarchalists who don’t believe women should hold jobs, run for political office, teach in Sunday School, write theology books, etc. Their position is groundless in many other ways, similar to flat-earth proponents, but they are more logically consistent than “soft complementarians,” who claim that the passage allows women to do all of those things as long as they don’t preach behind the pulpit in a worship service. Not if it’s a timeless prohibition, it doesn’t.

Last, there are reasons to believe the passage talks about marriage, not preaching. This is a minority (but growing minority) position, but decide for yourself. See my articles “Hear Me Out: What if 1 Timothy 2 is About Marriage, not Preaching?” and “Objections to Seeing 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as about Marriage, Not Preaching.” Regardless, if you accept the premise that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a timeless prohibition against women, then you cannot restrict it to preaching behind a pulpit on a Sunday morning. If your current pastors teach that it’s a timeless prohibition but they only use it to keep women from preaching, know that they could announce further restrictions in the future, without having to change their interpretive method.

10. Men and Women are different. If you think women can preach or hold leadership positions over men, it’s because you think women and men are exactly the same. Men are stronger and less emotional, thus more fit to lead and teach.

This is perhaps the worst argument, stunning in its ignorance or dishonesty. I’ve never met, read, or heard from any advocate for mutuality in ministry and the equality of women who believed men and women are exactly the same. In fact, we need women’s voices precisely because diversity is a good thing. We need non-hierarchical complementarity.

Second, many of the people who make this statement will say that men are bigger and stronger than women (which is usually but not always true); therefore, men should be in charge so they can protect women. However, leaders in denominations like the SBC, PCA, ACNA, OPC, and others have shown that they often defend fellow male leaders accused of abuse rather than women and children.

But it’s also nonsensical to believe that whoever is physically strongest or the best warrior should be in charge. That isn’t even how the military works. Does anyone believe that most generals and admirals, typically far past their physical prime, would last sixty seconds in a fight with the average enlisted infantry soldier?

Third, those who act as if the differences between men and women mean women shouldn’t attempt to preach will often say something like, “Women don’t teach proper doctrine. They always let their emotions rule them, and they commit heresy.”

But every major heresy in the church's history began with a man. And the stories of scripture are filled with male leaders who let their desires lead them astray. Compare the calm, cool, collected leadership of Deborah to the dumpster fire of Samson’s leadership. Compare the emotional maturity of Abigail to Nabal in 1 Samuel 25, a stunning indictment on the “Women can’t handle their emotions” argument.

Putting the “too emotional” argument to bed, forever.

Also, disallowing a woman’s leadership under the “women are too emotional” argument reveals a misunderstanding of the very concept of emotion.³ Emotions are not sinful; they are expressions of how we have been spiritually formed over time. If we are having unhealthy emotional expressions (rage, malice, slander, coveteousness) instead of “Fruit of the Spirit” emotions, that shows something about the way we’ve been spiritually and emotionally formed over the years. When we’re transformed by the renewal of our minds (Romans 12:2), the transformation includes emotions.

Our sinful desires lead us to sin. These are not emotions. We might construct the emotion of anger, which primes our bodies to defend, but it is our sinful desire that would lead us to harm someone after we have constructed anger. If we are angry and we hate someone and take vengeance, that is sin acting on us because we are slaves to sin. We can genuinely learn emotions from Jesus that are aligned with a Christ-like character.

To Sum It Up:

The arguments against women preaching the gospel make no sense and open a Pandora’s Box of logical inconsistencies, as I wrote in “Questions You Must Answer if You Don’t Let Women Teach Men.” Let’s put these arguments to bed and step into faithfulness to Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. He gives spiritual gifts to women and men alike, including gifts of teaching, prophecy, exhorting, and administration.

Photo by Vera Arsic: https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-and-woman-wearing-brown-leather-jackets-984950/

1. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 89–90.

2. Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 3rd edition, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger et al. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 215-16.

3. I’m grateful to Becky Castle Miller for the information in this paragraph and the next, via personal conversation. Becky is a PhD student at Wheaton College, writing a dissertation on emotions in the Gospel of Luke. She has an MA from Northern Seminary, where she wrote her thesis on Jesus’s emotions. Subscribe at beckcastlemiller.substack.com.