32 Comments
User's avatar
Meredith's avatar

This is so good, Bobby! If v. 12 is supposedly using "creation order" as a reason, why would the creation order of Adam being made first only apply in a church service? It's true that the patriarchalists are actually more consistent, though as you note, their views fall apart in other ways.

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Thanks! Yeah, in my conversations with some of the softer hierarchalists, I get the impression that they really want this to ONLY be about preaching sermons because it just feels too mean, otherwise. They've said things like, "Hardly any women want to preach. Hardly any MEN want to preach. And that's all we're saying women are prohibited from doing. They can be business executives, doctors, lawyers, teachers on any subject but the Bible, etc." But neither Paul's grammar nor his use of Adam and Eve makes sense of that.

Expand full comment
Meredith's avatar

Plus, Scriptural examples like Priscilla don't make sense in even a soft Complementarian reading, let alone a hard Comp or Patriarchal one.

Expand full comment
Rachel Palm's avatar

This is so true!

I had several friends who went to a Bible college where this idea of women preaching was very strict and also very confusing. Many of these women were getting married and going on to the mission field with their husbands where they were expected to teach the Bible to women. However, one friend shared her testimony for a group of women AND men at the Bible college as part of a class final. She had been around preaching/Bible study classes for the past two years, so naturally she used everything she had learned to share the story of how she met Christ. Afterwards, she was sternly reprimanded for preaching to men, even though giving her testimony was a requirement for passing the class.

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

That's so sad. I once had a very frustrating conversation with a male pastor who was angry that a woman had read a verse and referred to some other passages during a testimony. He was okay with the testimony in general, but upset that she used scripture. How bizarre!

Expand full comment
Rachel Palm's avatar

That was my response as well: this is bizarre. It also speaks to a certain fragility, I think.

Expand full comment
Laura Morton's avatar

Brilliant!! We need to keep this up from all angles — the church needs our women released into their full gifting and identity in Christ.

What helped me process the “busybodies” and house-to-house problem was picturing how protective Paul was in these early years. When I let my heart open to his and Timothy’s protectiveness against all the crazy false teachers (like today) it makes more sense and gets clearer. But as I always say - leave Genesis 3 in the tomb! 🙏🏽💜

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

"Leave it in the tomb" -- yes! Male rule is the only sad effect of the Fall that anyone wants to perpetuate. Crazy.

Expand full comment
Hallie's avatar

100%. The inconsistencies in the logic of the soft complementarian position are what ultimately led me to abandon it altogether.

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Yeah, the inconsistencies are baffling. You have to WANT to not see them.

Expand full comment
Janet Caldwell's avatar

Really good article Bobby. I’m working on my story of my journey into and out of biblical womanhood as a follow up to the story on my mom’s success in a man’s world. I have fears of it being too much for some. But the stories of spiritual abuse and oppression from men leaders over women I read on Substack has me wanting to challenge so many thoughts I learned as a young married woman.

Thank you for sharing your research and teachings

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Can't wait to read it!

Expand full comment
Aaron Hann's avatar

The situational impetus for 1 Timothy, as well as all NT books that are sourced for church structure, leaves me wondering if we need a biblical theology approach to ecclesiology. A bit of a tangent from your excellent and deep study of Paul, but my study of John has led me to similar conclusions. You might be interested in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, by Raymond Brown. Here’s one relevant quote (and significant coming from a Roman Catholic):

“In this book I have not dealt with different models of the church given in the NT because no one of the biblical authors discussed intended to offer an overall picture of what the church should be….I approached a number of NT books looking for an answer, explicit or implicit, to a specific problem, namely: What were Christians in the Sub-Apostolic Period (the last one-third of the first century) being told that would enable their respective churches to survive the passing of the authoritative apostolic generation? There was no evidence in these works that a consistent or uniform ecclesiology had emerged. Rather, writings addressed to different NT communities had quite diverse emphases. Even though each emphasis could be effective in the particular circumstances of the writing, each had glaring shortcomings that would constitute a danger were that emphasis isolated and deemed to be sufficient for all times. Taken collectively, however, these emphases constitute a remarkable lesson about early idealism in regard to Christian community life.”

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Wow, that's really intriguing. I'm putting that book on my wish list. Thanks, Aaron!

Expand full comment
Aaron Hann's avatar

If you care to read this post that engages with that book, I’d be really curious to hear what you think. I feel out of place with the comp/egal debate because my study of John has pretty much led me to believe it’s all moot. If John’s community didn’t have any authoritative ordained teachers, then of course women can teach. Which is exactly what we see in John. But I digress 🤓. https://onceaweek.substack.com/p/apostles-vs-disciples-hierarchy-vs?r=16589c&utm_medium=ios

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

I'll check it out!

Expand full comment
Dr Dennis Callahan's avatar

Thank you for your approach. It refreshing to have exercise all of available scripture and pull it together with your understanding. Would more teachers and pastors would do the same. Keep up the good work!

Cheers,

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Thanks so much!

Expand full comment
Tov Rose's avatar

Well done. Very well stated. Keep it coming!

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Katelyn Entz's avatar

Excellent exegesis of a difficult and controversial passage!

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Thanks Katelyn!

Expand full comment
Codebra's avatar

Oh for goodness sake. Men need to be leaders or the entire thing falls apart.

“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”

— Aristotle

Expand full comment
Laura Roberts Wierenga's avatar

"Females are weaker and colder in nature, and we must look upon the female character as being a sort of natural deficiency." -- also Aristotle

"The female is, as it were, a mutilated male." -- also Aristotle

"[T]he relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled." -- also Aristotle

As Christians, it behooves us not to take our understanding of gender identity from a guy who only grudgingly admits that women probably have souls (but then hastens to add that they can't really use them as well as men).

Expand full comment
Julie Gilbreath's avatar

Thanks for introducing me to the term “soft complementarianism.” Now it makes sense (and doesn’t at the same time) why I’ve always been able to teach coed classes in my SBC churches, but I would never be allowed to preach on a Sunday morning or serve communion because only deacons serve communion, and only men can be deacons. 🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

There are always strange lines in arbitrary places.

Expand full comment
Kate Orson's avatar

Thank you for writing this. It’s so helpful to know about the Greek not meaning for all time. I believed that women weren’t meant to teach as it felt like Paul was meaning it for all time when he points back to Adam and Eve in Genesis.

However it’s never felt totally settled in my mind and your interpretation makes so much sense!

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

You're welcome, Kate. I am glad it was helpful for you!

Expand full comment
Kathleen Fowle's avatar

very helpful and encouraging, thank you Bobby. I once heard a teaching of the names of Paul's disciples, many were actually women. KJV dropped or added letters to make those names appear masculine. Have you researched this?

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

Yes! The main instance of a woman leader whom male translators have tried to change into a man is Junia (an apostle - Romans 16:7). I'm going to write a term paper on this for a class I'm in. Then I'll publish it as a two-part Substack article in June.

Here is a good, short article on this phenomenon: http://www.weighted-glory.com/2019/04/five-female-new-testament-leaders-who-were-given-sex-changes/#:~:text=It%20is%20probably%20no%20coincidence,3%5D

Expand full comment
Kathleen Fowle's avatar

Thanks so much -- i have all kinds of notes in an older Bible but they are truncated and I never wrote down the sources. May God bless you in your writing.

Expand full comment
Bobby Gilles's avatar

You’re welcome, Kathleen. And thanks for the encouragement!

Expand full comment