Refer to 2 Timothy 1 blog article to get background of this last letter of Paul before he is beheaded in Rome by Nero about 65-66 AD. Remember he pretty well knows that this is his last winter. He is writing a very personal letter to his beloved son in the faith, Timothy. Instead of verse by verse, I am just giving some key texts and how they might apply to us.

2 Timothy 2:1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. ² The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” This verse means a lot to me. When I finished 2 years at the school of preaching in West Monroe, La, the Lord guided my wife and I to do 3 years of mission work in Trinidad, West Indies. The work in Trinidad had been started all over on the island, mainly due to the work of Bob Brown. “Campaigns” all over the island led to thousands of baptisms. I went on one that baptized 150 in less than 2 weeks. That led to the starting of congregations all over the island. My coworker chose the southern part of the island b/c there were no missionaries or preachers, and the churches were young. But this verse was a key in our mission. We baptized more people and we established a few more congregations, but our mission was to train leaders in those churches that could carry on the work after we left without relying of U.S. money to pay preachers. After all, that is the way it was done in the New Testament early house churches.

We had seen the paid preacher system in mission work (foreign preachers paid by U.S. congregations) and wanted no part of that. It wasn’t Biblical and it wasn’t effective in the long run. We did start a full time 2 year school of preaching in Trinidad and we missionaries taught the classes, very similar to my school of preaching in La. That might have been needed since we brought in men from other islands as well as Trinidad to train. Looking back, I’m not sure how effective that really was, however. The best thing we did was a “Saturday” mini school of preaching for a year for local leaders, men and women, members who had regular jobs, those who could preach and teach the word. We did many of the same Bible courses, just cut back. We trained a customs agent, an oil company employee, a postman, etc. These men and women led the churches over the past 50 years since we were there! They have never had a paid by the U.S. preacher in that time. In turn, after we left after 3 years, they trained other men, just as 2 Timothy 2:1 says: entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.” The congregations are still doing well. Some of the men we trained have established new congregations and have done mission work in Guyana, which is just across the bay in South America.

It was kinda ironic when they would come back from a short mission trip to Guyana and tell me that there were several paid by the U.S. preachers in Guyana that were “momaguying” (deceiving, fooling, tricking) the U.S. supporting congregations by putting on a show when their representatives were in Guyana on short trips. Our Trinidadian guys saw that the Guyana paid preachers were just putting on a show while they were there, but after that weren’t working hard at all.

Such is the paid by the U.S. preacher system everywhere. Granted, short term pay of missionaries might be necessary. After all, we were supported by U.S. congregations while in Trinidad. But it was never to set up a paid preacher system in Trinidad, which we did not do. I know that system works well is some places, but only as long as the U.S. money keeps coming. Is it still viable? Maybe so if the preachers are honest, sincere men who are not preaching for money, for a job. But often that is not the case. Often those preachers will stop preaching and evangelizing if the pay stops. Also, the paid by the U.S. preacher tends to become “the pastor” who runs the show in the congregations, instead of installing elders to shepherd the flocks. I was glad to see one of our Trinidadian congregations appoint elders recently. I do know of some mission works that train leaders in some way but then expect the leaders to get jobs to support themselves; the U.S. churches give them “working funds” to their travel, etc. as they minister to the local congregations and that seems to work pretty well.

I know Paul said 1 Corinthians 9:⁶ Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? ¹¹ If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? Galatians 6:⁶ Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.” But is Paul talking about paying full time local. preachers? There was no such thing in the local church. He must have been talking about traveling evangelists like Timothy and Titus, who might not be able to support themselves with a job like Paul supported himself with tent making. That full time traveling evangelist might even end up being supported full time without supporting himself. Paul personally would never take money from the church he was establishing and working with. Paul spent 3 years working with the church in Ephesus but he told the Ephesian elders Acts 20: ³³ I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. ³⁴ You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.” Apparently he never took money from them. He made tents to support himself while working in Corinth. He did receive some help from the church at Philippi to give him more free time to preach (Philippians 4) while he was in Corinth, but he would not take money from the church in Corinth. Some elders actually received supplemental income if their shepherding took so much time from their jobs that they could not support their families. 1 Timothy 5:¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” But no full time local paid preachers.

But what amazes me is that we run the same paid preacher system here in the U.S. Usually there are several competent men leaders and elders who are “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2) , who “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Men who have jobs and are self supporting. And yet we hired preachers, often at large salaries and benefits, to preach sermons (which is the main thing they do). We build large congregations and draw new members (usually from other congregations which swap members all the time with other congregations) around the paid preacher’s ability to deliver sermons that appeal to us. The pay might include visiting the sick, which is really the work of the elders and members, or the paid preacher might insist that is not part of his work. This paid preacher system is not Biblical. I’m not saying that it is a sin. It’s just not Biblical. In house churches, elders did the shepherding. There were teachers. Evangelists were not full time local paid preachers. They traveled to different churches, stayed for different periods of time, were given food and a place to stay while they were at a church, but then moved on. They never became full time paid preachers for local congregations. The Didache (100 AD) said that if they stayed for more than 2 or 3 days that they were preaching for money and should be sent away. Again, many congregations do this system well. They hire really good preachers who can do very good sermons and draw members. Other congregations deal with the complications of this faulty system when they hire a preacher who doesn’t turn out to be a good person, or they just get tired of him and his sermons. Or he just moves on to a higher paying or better church situation. How much money is spent on this paid preacher system? Millions. (

AI) “According to available data, the average church allocates around 50% of their contributions towards staff salaries and benefits, while typically dedicating another 25-30% towards building costs, including maintenance and utilities, meaning a combined percentage of roughly 75% of contributions go towards staff and buildings combined.” About 10% of money collected goes to ministry programs for youth and adults among the members themelves. About 10% goes to mission work, printing Bibles for mission work drilling wells for clean water in Africa, supporting widows and orphans. That leaves about 5% miscellaneous. Here is a good article on how churches spend their money. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/manage-finances/budgets/how-churches-spend-their-money/ Church buildings now cost in the millions and churches have many on staff. One local church built a $1 million dollar bell tower which is impressive, but how many wells could be drilled for clean water and how many poor children overseas could be supported with that money? But could large churches with buildings and paid preachers and staff function without full time employee? Probably not. So, we just continue to do the same non Biblical system whether it is a wise use of the Lord’s money or not. I know this is just my opinion. Others would say that the system works well and, even though 75% of collections is spent on buldings and staff, there is a lot of good edification of members going on and at least 10-15% is going to missions, benevolence, etc. But in effective churches, usually that edification really happens in small groups that meet. The assembly does edify many, but the most personal one on one edifications comes from small groups that meet in houses. Sounds like the early church house churches, doesn’t it?

How would the church do if we did away with church buildings and paid staff and went to only house churches? (AI) “Due to the nature of house churches often operating underground or without official registration, it’s impossible to give a precise number of churches meeting solely in homes across foreign countries; however, estimates suggest millions of people globally participate in house churches, particularly in countries like China, where religious restrictions drive many Christians to meet in private homes; conservative estimates for China alone could reach tens of millions of house church attendees.” From https://jcgresources.com/en/resources/church_planting/en_contemporary/ “The most rapid growth in the house church movement is in restricted access areas like China, Asia, and North Africa. I attended one mission gathering and heard a missionary representative for China talk about house churches springing up like wildfire. The representative spoke of one Chinese leader who had planted 30,000 churches—all house churches. This Chinese leader trains people and within three weeks they are expected to plant a church. Well-known pollster George Barna has estimated that by the year 2025, membership in the conventional church in the U.S. will be cut by fifty percent, while alternative movements (like house churches) will potentially involve thirty to thirty-five percent of all Christians in the United States. (I wonder if that 2015 prediction has come true now that we are about to begin 2025? ). Similar movements of house churches are also rising up in other western nations like Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the U.K. House churches do not require ordained, seminary-trained professionals to function effectively. House churches point to the fact that New Testament teaching does not recognize clergy and laity distinctions. Those who are seminary or Bible school-trained can be assets to house churches, sometimes serving as catalysts who plant the first few house churches in a given area or people group. But they don’t always have to be physically present for house churches to have legitimacy or theological understanding. House churches do need godly, mature leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4). The training, however, happens primarily through an informal approach, with basic Bible knowledge and practical ministry as the main components. House church leaders are volunteers. Financial resources are normally used to support itinerant workers, missions, or meeting the practical needs of members, such as the poor, widows, and orphans. In most cases, the house church does collect an offering. And in rare cases, a house church may decide to support one of the leaders.

Larry Kreider writes:The Chinese house church movement has made a commitment to the Lord concerning how the church will exist even when they are freed from communism in the future. They have already made a decision that they will build no buildings. They want to keep their method of training and sending intact, and not focus on constructing buildings but on building people. House churches are fully functioning churches in themselves. They partake of the Lord’s supper, baptize, marry, bury, and exercise church discipline. Many house churches, however, do network with other house churches for mutual accountability, encouragement, and cooperation. Those in the house church movement long to return to New Testament Christianity. Many in the movement are fed up with the modern day version of Christianity that emphasizes crowds, church buildings, and unnatural hierarchies. They desire to go back to the values of simplicity and the priesthood of all believers, just like the early church. And houses churches are well-positioned to meet this need. They thrive without money or traditional hierarchy to make things happen.” So if the house church system works in China and other poor or persecuted areas, why couldn’t it work in the U.S. also? It could and in some places in the U.S. does.

Another informative article: https://www.hitland.net/resources/articles/article-house-church-movement.html “Focusing only on those who attend some kind of church (which I recall is about 43 percent of us), 74 percent of themattend only a traditional church, 19 percent attend both a
traditional and a house church (i.e. small groups as part of a traditional church), and 5 percent are hard-core house church folks (house church only). Please don’t think of the house church as a new fad. For the first 300 years of Christianity, house churches were the norm. In fact, church buildings were quite rare until the fourth century, when the power-hungry Roman Emperor Constantine suddenly outlawed house church meetings, began erecting church buildings with Roman tax money, and issued a decree that all should join his Catholic Church. If you want to stick to a biblical model, the house church is your only choice. In China, the world’s largest church (120 million) is 90 percent based in homes.”

Of course, the reason that the house church only model might now work as well in the U.S might be that the average church member doesn’t really want it. He/she would rather go to a bigger, impersonal church assembly in a building, listen to a sermon, hear a band playing Christian music, and go home. That doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a sincere Christian who maybe has a Christian ministry somewhere, but many church attending members are only just “Sunday only” Christians. Also, house churches are a lot of work. My wife and I have had a Wednesday night small group (up to 25 people) every week for 30 years now. It is not a burden, but it does take commitment and work. My wife cooks for 25 people once per month (others do the same). We have to get ready for the meeting, etc. Also I’m not sure that most church members are evangelistic. Going to house churches is not just to save money. It is to try to bring in unchurched people who don’t like what they see in the modern church business system, who really would like to do simple early church Christianity. Or to bring in the unsaved and establish a close relationship with them so as to teach them the gospel. Once a house church gets to a certain size doing that (maybe 15-25), split off and start another house church. Again, a lot of church members might enjoy a house church group in someone else’s house, but they would never start another group in their own houses. Another issue might be providing for the members’ children in a house church model. But that should not be a hurdle. Parents take turns working with the children in each house church. Also, much of the meeting in a house church can be done with whole families being together for the singing, the Lord’s Supper, for encouraging words and family news, etc. Maybe the children can break off into children’s classes of some sort while the adults have a deeper Bible study.

Well, that is a lot! Sorry if you disagree and just like the current system. Enjoy it and get the most you can from it. It still has a lot of good things even if it is not Biblical.

Continuing the study of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, let’s get to the controversial part. ¹¹ A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. ¹² But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. ¹³ For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. ¹⁵ But women will be preserved through childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.” The word “quietly” in 2:11 and “quiet” in 2:12 is hésuchia: Quietness, silence, tranquility. In the New Testament, “hésuchia” refers to a state of quietness or tranquility, often in the context of demeanor or lifestyle. It implies a peaceful and calm disposition, free from disturbance or agitation. This term is used to describe both an external quietness and an internal peace of mind.” I don’t think it means absolute silence at all times, although silence could be included at times. A submissive women in marriage or in the church will have a peaceful, calm demeanor and not be aggressively speaking out or challenging their husbands or the men in the church leadership. She cannot “teach or exercise authority over the man”. All this does not mean that the women could not speak in church gatherings. In 1 Corinthians 11, the women were told that they could pray and prophesy in a mixed men/women group if they would wear a veil to show that they were in submission and not trying to take over from the men. That has to be vocal prayer (prayer in silence would make no sense) and prophesying was vocal. This was based on the order given in 1 Cor 11:³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” That order would apply to the home and church. But in 1 Cor 14:²⁶ What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” Paul gives some guidelines for “when you come together” in any group of Christians, house church, small group, church building. This would have to include women who had a miraculous gift like prophecy b/c he had just told the women they could use their gift of prophecy as long as they wore a veil. So the women could use their gifts in a mixed assembly to teach or prophecy or pray aloud (maybe in tongues) or sing a solo song, etc. But in 1 Cor 14:33 As in all the churches of the saints, ³⁴ the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. ³⁵ If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” The forbidden “speaking” here is sigaó: To be silent, to keep silence, to hold one’s peace. Guzik: “Some have said the reason for this is because in these ancient cultures (as well as some present-day cultures), men and women sat in separate sections. The thought is that women interrupted the church service by shouting questions and comments to their husbands during the service. Clarke expresses this idea: “It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women.” So the context of 1 Cor 14:34 women not speaking is indeed silence but silence under certain circumstances and not some general rule that in the assembly the women can’t use their gifts aloud at all, which would be a contradiction of 1 Cor 11.

I was raised in a church that used 1 Cor 14:34 to say that the women could not pray aloud in the assembly *even if veiled) or share a teaching in the assembly. I think that is a unbiblical restriction of the use of gifts that women in the church have to edify the church. Plus my church was so inconsistent on applying the rule. Women could sing in the assembly, but that goes against their literalist interprestion of not speaking at all. They could share a truth in a mixed Bible class before the assembly began but could not do the exact same thing once everyone went into the “sanctuary”. The early church only met in house churches, and there would be no such distinction between a Bible classroom and the sanctuary. The male leaders of the church are allowing the women to use their gifts in a mixed group gathering. The women are not “usurping” the authority of the men, trying to take charge, when they modestly use their gifts, yielding to the male leadership when need be.

BTW I need to add this. If women did lead prayer in a mixed group, I don’t think they would need to wear a veil to show submission. That was a cultural way in the first century of showing submission but that is not our culture here in the U.S. I think a woman could lead a prayer in a mixed group without a veil. I think it is obvious if a woman praying is being submissive or not without a veil. It is interesting that some of our churches of Christ stil encourage the ladies to wear little doillies during the assemblies. That is weird really since they are not even allowed to pray out loud, which is the reason for wearing a veil in 1 Cor 11, i..e. only if a woman is praying aloud in a mixed group. If a woman’s conscience tells her to wear a doillie like that, then she should follow her conscience. Hopefully she would not judge others who choose not to do so, and those who choose not to do so would not judge her (Romans 14:1-3).

Does this mean that women can’t be elders and preachers? The elder part of that question is obvious to me. 1 Timothy 3: one of the. qualifications of an elder is “husband of one wife”. Unless you are a LGBQT proponent of a wife having only one wife, that rules out women being elders. Sometimes I see unwise elders making terrible decisions for the flock and I wish some of the wise women in the. pews could be the elders instead, but we must trust God’s wisdom on this matter. What about women preachers? That is a little more difficult to answer. I concede that a woman can come into the gathering (even the main church assembly in the sanctuary) and share a teaching aloud to the flock as long as she does not try to usurp authority and take over from the men leaders. Then could the men agree to allow her to. preach a 30 minute sermon in the same assembly. Technically, I guess so. But this brings us back to a bigger issue. Why do we have a 30 minute sermon, even by some man preacher?

In the early church, there were many miraculous gifts for mutual edification. 1 Cor 12:⁴ Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; ⁵ and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; ⁶ and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. ⁷ To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. ⁸ For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, ¹⁰ to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” Then in 1 Cor 14 Paul gives instructions on how to use those gifts in any assembly or gathering of sainst. 1 Cor 14:²⁶ What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. ²⁷ If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. ²⁸ But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. ²⁹ Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. ³⁰ If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. ³¹ For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, ³² and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. ³³ For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

No one gift dominated the time in the assemblies. We don’t have those miraculous gifts, but “prophecy” might be close to our concept of preaching today since the preacher is doing what the prophets did, which is revealing the word of God to people (although not miraculously like the prophets). So, 2 or 3 prophets, and apparently, if one of them goes too long and takes over the time, then a prophet sitting in the flock, then the long winded prophet was to “be silent” and let the one sitting speak. Apply that to church preachers today. Can you imagine 10 minutes into the preacher’s 30 minute sermon some man in the pews telling him that he has a teaching from the word of God that needs to be preached. He tells the main preacher to sit down and then he speaks for 10 minutes. Bottom line, the way we do it is not not scriptural. The assembly should be using our gifts (even if not miraculous gifts) to edify the flock. Use diverstiy of gifts: we don’t need more than 2 or 3 of any gift. Do not let any one gifted person dominate the time, even a paid preacher.

Which brings to a bigger question. Why do we have paid preachers in congregations? In the early church, you had house churches with elders (hopefully) in each group. You had miraculously gifted elders and teachers in each group. You would never think to hire a paid full time preacher for the group. If anything, 1 Timothy 5 will say that an elder might need supplemental income from the flock if he is devoting so much time to shepherding and preaching. 1 Timothy 5:¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” But where would they “preach” in addition to shepherding? In the New Testament, the word “preach” comes from the Greek word kerusso, which means to proclaim, to declare, to announce, or to herald a message. It was the message proclaimed by the kerux, who was the official spokesman or herald of a king.Used to describe the act of proclaiming the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.” It would not be the word used of an elder shepherding his house flock, although he might preach the gospel basics if a non Christian is visiting the group gathering. Apparently some elders would go to surrounding locations and actually preach the core gospel message to those who were not Christians. That might take time from their trade and incoome to support their family.

The “evangelists” in the early church would go to different places for limited periods of time. Paul left the evangelists Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to work with those churches. The church might give them food and clothing, but they did not become full time paid preachers. They would stay for a while and then move on to preach the gospel somewhere else, establish a church, or work to correct a church that needed help (like Ephesus or Crete). The Didache (late 1st century church manual) says that if they stayed more than 2 or 3 days, they were false teachers preaching only for money! Didache Chapter 11 “Travelling teachers — Apostles — Prophets: 3 And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel.  4 Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord, 5 but let him not stay more than one day, or if need be a second as well; but if he stay three days, he is a false prophet. 6 And when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread till he reach his night’s lodging; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.” So already in the first century they had problems with men preaching for money!

I know we are discussing whether women should be full time paid preachers. The bigger question: should anyone, man or woman, be a full time paid preacher. My answer is no. There are some full time paid preachers who have done a lot of good, but overall the full time paid preacher system has been a negative. It has killed mutual edificatioin in church assemblies. It has put too much power in the preacher, his talents, his opinions, his influence. It has become a job for many. It has become a real problem when the preacher commits some money or sex scandal. Very few paid preachers are out preaching the core gospel message to unconverted sinners. Most of what they preach is just edifying messages from the word but there are most likely several men who could do that, for free, with short messages without a 30 minute sermon.

But how could a big church with a building, a budget, etc. function without a full time paid preacher that draws the crowds? It probably can’t, although I would love to see an established big church try to do without a paid preacher. Do you see the problem? The house church is growing, using mutual edification and no paid preachers, so we decide to rent a bigger place to meet. Then we get even bigger and decide to build a church building. Then we decide to hire a full time paid preacher who can give us 30 minute sermons instead of mutual edification. We have now done what Israel did: ” Give us a king so that we can be like the other nations”. We have enetered the big church business competition. Some get a talented paid preacher that can draw new members (usually not new converts but Christians coming from other churches). Do you see the problem? So to correct all that, do we disband big churches, sell the property and use the money to drill wells overseas and print Bibles for mission work, and encourage members to start meeting in house churches? Or, do we just try to make the best of it, live with the system, hire good men to preach good edifying messages, and allow the flock to love and serve one another within the current system? (BTW I still fill in to preach an occasional sermon at our church). Or do I pull away from the big church and start a house church in my home, hoping to draw even non Christians to our group? And if our group gets too large, then split and start another evangelistic house church.

Enough said on that! The questions was “should women be preachers”? If we mean, full time paid preachers (as I think the question would imply), then “no”. But maybe neither men or women should be full time paid preachers. I guess if you decide to use unscriptural full time paid preachers, then you are making up your own rules for doing church work. If you do that, then I guess the argument could be made to allow men or women full time paid preachers. The problem even there might be if she is considered to be the “senior pastor” as many denominations do. The word for “pastor” in the New Testament refers to elders, so a woman can’t be a senior pastor elder. The male elders might have to rebuke false teacher men in the flock. A woman elder might have to do that, which would be usurping authority over men, which is forbidden. If a woman preachers is considered to be the senior pastor, even if not appointed as an elder, then she would perhaps need to rebuke false teacher men in the flock. Do you see the problem?

In conclusion, Paul gives the reasons that women are not to usurp authority over the men. 1 Timothy 2:¹² But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. ¹³ For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. ¹⁵ But women will be preserved through childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.” The chain of authority is 1 Cor 11:³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” But is this just a first century cultural thing? In 1 Timothy 2, Paul says that this order goes back to the creation story in Genesis 1-3. 1) The order in which Adam and Eve were created. Adam was created and then Eve was created to be a “helper” to Adam. An electrician has an apprentice helper, but you can’t have 2 heads, 2 people in charge. The main electrician is the one in charge. 2) Eve was deceived by Satan, but Adam was not deceived. So what? The implication, to me, is that women might the more likely of the two to be deceived in spiritual matters. Why might that be? B/c God has given women some unique qualities for birthing, nursing, and caring for little children while men out working in the weeds to provide for the family. Men think with their head, and women think with their heart. So, yes, women might be more easily deceived. So the men are given the responsibility of leading the home and making the tough spiritual decisions and women are to be in submission. Paul says this same logic would mean that women were not to usurp authority over the men in the church also. BTW Paul added this about the subject: 2 Timothy 3:⁶ For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, ⁷ always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”

I know I have given a lot of opinion in this article. You can decide on how valid my opinions are. There is a lot of talk about men being “misogynists” today. I hope I am not one of those, just trying to keep women in outdated submissive roles. I hope I am just teaching the roles for women as God laid out in scripture.

Thanks for reading.