The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Comprehensive Case for Complementarianism, Part 4

Posted on 07/07/2025 at The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

Engaging Egalitarianism: A Fair Assessment

In 2023, a vibrant evangelical church in Texas faced a crossroads. Their gifted women’s ministry leader, Sarah, felt called to preach, citing Galatians 3:28: “There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” She pointed to her teaching gifts and women like Priscilla in Scripture. The elders, however, upheld 1 Timothy 2:12 – “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” – sparking heated debates. Some members championed Sarah’s gifts, others feared straying from Scripture, and the tension threatened to split the congregation. A Religion News Service article published in 2021 report noted “just over half (56.9%) of conservative, evangelical and fundamentalist congregations” allow women to preach, reflecting this growing divide. Sarah’s story, while fictitious, mirrors countless churches wrestling with egalitarianism versus complementarianism. Both sides love Scripture, but which aligns with God’s design? This fourth post in our 12-part series explores egalitarianism’s case, affirms its strengths, critiques its weaknesses, and shows why complementarianism is more faithful to the Bible. Let’s test all claims against God’s Word, praying for wisdom to live out His design.

The Egalitarian Case: Core Arguments and Strengths

Egalitarianism argues that men and women should have equal roles in church and home, based on gifting, not gender. As Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis write in Discovering Biblical Equality, Galatians 3:28 eliminates role distinctions, allowing women to preach, lead as elders, or head households. Let’s unpack their key arguments and why they resonate.

Equality in Creation: Egalitarians emphasize Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image… male and female created he them”. Phyllis Trible, in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, argues this implies no role distinctions, with Eve’s role as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) in Genesis 2:18 signaling partnership, not subordination. Since God is called ezer in Psalm 33:20 – “He is our help and our shield” – the term carries no inferiority, suggesting Adam and Eve are equal partners. Egalitarians are correct that “helper” does not imply subordination, as abusive patriarchal views wrongly claim, but complementarians see it as a complementary role, distinct in function, as Article 2 explored.

Galatians 3:28: This verse – “There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” – is a cornerstone. Philip Payne, in Man and Woman, One in Christ, claims it erases gender-based roles, opening all ministry positions to women based on their gifts. Egalitarians see this as Christ’s restoration of creation’s equality, undoing any hierarchy.

Ephesians 5:21: Egalitarians view Ephesians 5:21 – “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” – as the interpretive key to Paul’s household codes (Ephesians 5:18–6:9), emphasizing mutual submission over hierarchical roles. Egalitarians argue that the Greek verb ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō, to submit), paired with the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλοις (allēlois, one another), establishes a principle of mutual submission that governs relationships in marriage, family, and church. Craig Keener, in Paul, Women & Wives, suggests Paul’s focus on wives’ submission (5:22-24) reflects strategic sensitivity to Greco-Roman culture, where household codes, rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy, defined family roles (husband-wife, parent-child, master-slave) to uphold societal stability. Paul, likely writing from Roman imprisonment, crafted these codes to show Christians as respectable citizens, countering charges of subversion common against “suspicious sects” like Judaism or the Isis cult. Keener writes, “Why does Paul, who calls for mutual submission, deal more explicitly with the submission of wives than with that of husbands? The answer… is, ‘Because he was smart.’ His social statements are among the most progressive of his day, but… he needed to temper his radicalism with prudent sensitivity to his culture”. Yet, Paul’s call for husbands’ sacrificial love (5:25-33) introduces a countercultural ethic, framing submission as mutual and rooted in Christ’s example. For egalitarians, Ephesians 5:21 prioritizes equality, with gender-specific instructions shaped by temporary cultural needs, aligning with Galatians 3:28’s vision of no male-female distinction in Christ.

Women in Ministry: Scripture highlights women like Junia, potentially an apostle (Romans 16:7), and Priscilla, who taught Apollos (Acts 18:26), per Linda Belleville in Two Views on Women in Ministry. Deborah’s leadership as a judge (Judges 4-5) shows women in authority, suggesting no biblical bar to women preaching or pastoring.

Cultural Context: Egalitarians argue that passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 – “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man” – address specific cultural issues in Ephesus, not universal rules. Belleville, as cited by Pierce and Groothuis, suggests the Greek αὐθεντέω (authenteō, to exercise authority) implies abusive authority, not legitimate leadership, limiting the verse’s scope.

Strengths: Egalitarianism’s appeal is undeniable. It addresses real abuses of patriarchy, like domineering leadership that marginalizes women. It empowers women to use their God-given gifts, resonating with cultural values of fairness and equality. Highlighting figures like Priscilla and Deborah celebrates women’s contributions, inspiring many to serve boldly. These strengths make egalitarianism attractive, especially in a world skeptical of traditional roles.

Critiquing Egalitarianism: Biblical and Hermeneutical Weaknesses

While egalitarianism’s heart for equality is compelling, its interpretations often falter under scrutiny. Let’s examine its weaknesses, testing them against Scripture and scholarship, with grace but clarity.

Selective Hermeneutics: Egalitarians prioritize Galatians 3:28 over passages like 1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5:22-33, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. As Douglas Moo notes in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Galatians 3:28 addresses salvation equality – “for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” – not functional roles in church or home. Its context (Galatians 3:26-29) focuses on access to God through faith, not erasing distinctions. Elevating this verse above others risks cherry-picking, ignoring the Bible’s consistent pattern of distinct roles.

Trible’s claim that Genesis 2:7’s הָאָדָם (hā-ʾādām, the man) is a sexually undifferentiated “earth creature” until Eve’s creation is creative but flawed. As Article 2 explained, hā-ʾādām contextually denotes a male human in Genesis 2:7-20 – God gives “the man” commands (2:16-17) and Adam names animals (2:19-20) before Eve’s creation. Trible’s reliance on etymology, tying hā-ʾādām to אֲדָמָה (ʾădāmâ, ground), misleads; context, not word origin, determines meaning, per Brown-Driver-Briggs. Her reading also contradicts Genesis’ continued use of hā-ʾādām for Adam post-Eve (3:8-12), undermining her theory.

Speculative Cultural Apologetics: Keener’s egalitarian interpretation of Ephesians 5:21’s mutual submission falters under hermeneutical and theological scrutiny, relying on inconsistent and speculative assumptions. He argues that ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō, to submit) and ἀλλήλοις (allēlois, one another) in 5:21 – “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” – eliminate power imbalances in marriage (5:22-33), with wifely submission reflecting Greco-Roman norms to avoid Roman suspicion. Yet, this selective application ignores the parallel household codes for children (6:1-4, “obey your parents”) and slaves (6:5-9, “be obedient to… masters”), which retain clear hierarchies. If 5:21 erases marital hierarchy, why not parental or master-slave authority? This inconsistent hermeneutic lacks textual justification, as 5:21 introduces a general call to humility, applied differently across roles. As George W. Knight III notes: “In the admonition ‘submit to one another,’ the verb (hupotassō) has as its basic meaning ‘to subject or subordinate.’ Here Paul’s use of the middle voice focuses on what one does to oneself: one submits oneself to others.”

Keener’s claim that husbands’ servant leadership (5:25) reflects mutual submission further implies Christ submits to the church, undermining His authoritative headship as κεφαλή (kephalē, head; 5:23). Christ’s sacrificial love (5:25, “as Christ loved the church”) never entails submission to the church, which submits to His ultimate authority (Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18). Keener’s conjectures – e.g., that Paul crafted codes to appear patriarchal to pagans while signaling equality to Christians – use speculative terms like “we may suspect,” and overstate Paul’s concern for provoking Rome. Paul’s boldness in Roman imprisonment (Philippians 1:12-13, “my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace”) prioritizes gospel clarity over cultural appeasement. His call for husbands’ sacrificial love (5:25) was radically countercultural, challenging Greco-Roman patriarchy beyond Keener’s “tempered radicalism.” This elaborate charade is implausible, as Ephesians addresses believers (1:1) and grounds roles in Christ’s relationship with the church (5:32). Complementarians affirm mutual humility but see Ephesians 5:22–6:9 as defining gendered and hierarchical roles rooted in creation (1 Timothy 2:13) and the gospel.

Downplaying Creation Order: Egalitarians dismiss Genesis 2’s sequence – Adam created first, then Eve – as insignificant, despite Paul’s appeal in 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (KJV). Eve’s role as עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo, helper corresponding to him) and the Septuagint’s βοηθός (boēthos, helper) imply a complementary role, not identical function. Adam’s poetic response in Genesis 2:23 celebrates Eve as his equal in essence – “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” – yet uniquely suited as his partner, fulfilling his longing for companionship, as complementarians like Raymond Ortlund Jr. emphasize in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: “So, was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, ‘suitable for him.’ But she was not his equal in that she was his ‘helper.’ God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God.” Ignoring this order reshapes Scripture to fit modern egalitarian ideals.

Cultural Accommodation: Egalitarians claim 1 Timothy 2:12’s prohibition is cultural, tied to Ephesian issues. Payne argues αὐθεντέω (authenteō, to exercise authority) means “assume authority,” suggesting a temporary restriction on women teaching men to curb the spread of false doctrine in the Ephesian church. Belleville adds that the KJV’s “usurp authority” and the Vulgate’s dominari (to rule) imply domineering, not legitimate authority. However, Gary Manning’s analysis of the BGU 1208 papyrus (27 BC) clarifies that authenteō denotes legitimate legal authority, not abuse. In the papyrus, Tryphon uses authenteō to describe his authority over Antilochos, gained through legal actions (complaining to the strategos and withholding payment), not an improper seizure. Manning concludes the word does not represent an abusive or ingressive act. Payne’s claim that authenteō implies “self-assumed authority” misreads the papyrus, assuming a slave is involved (none is mentioned) and ignoring Tryphon’s legitimate actions. Belleville’s “firm stand” translation downplays the legal context, as authenteō involves formal authority, not mere assertiveness. BDAG and LSJ define authenteō as “to assume a stance of independent authority,” or “to have full power or authority over,” with no ingressive sense in this context. The KJV’s “usurp” (1611 English) can mean “to exercise a right,” not just “seize unlawfully,” and dominari is stative, not ingressive, per Harper’s Latin Dictionary.[12] Paul’s appeal to creation (1 Timothy 2:13) and “the law” (1 Corinthians 14:34, likely Genesis 2) grounds these texts in God’s universal design, not Ephesian culture, as Thomas Schreiner notes.

Misuse of Examples: Egalitarians cite Priscilla (Acts 18:26) and Junia (Romans 16:7) as proof of women in leadership. Yet, Priscilla taught Apollos alongside her husband Aquila, in an informal, non-authoritative setting, not as a church elder or pastor (Acts 18:26). Junia’s role as “notable among the apostles” (Romans 16:7) is debated – possibly meaning “respected by” apostles, not holding the formal office of Apostle. The Greek term ἀπόστολος (apostolos, apostle) can broadly mean “messenger” or “missionary” (e.g., Philippians 2:25, Epaphroditus as “messenger”), not necessarily a formal office like the Twelve. Even if Junia were an “apostle” in this broader sense, it wouldn’t imply eldership, as complementarians such as Piper and Grudem argue: “Therefore, if Andronicus and Junias were apostles, they were probably among the third group serving in some kind of itinerant ministry. If Junias is a woman, this would seem to put her in the same category with Priscilla, who with her husband seemed to do at least a little travelling with the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:18).” Deborah (Judges 4-5) led as a judge in a unique context, not as a priest or elder, and her role doesn’t override New Testament patterns of male eldership (1 Timothy 3:1-7). These examples, while inspiring, don’t negate clear prohibitions like 1 Timothy 2:12.

Why Complementarianism is More Faithful to Scripture

Complementarianism better reflects the Bible’s unified teaching on gender roles, weaving together creation, church order, and the gospel. Genesis 1-3 establishes men and women as equal image-bearers yet distinct, with Eve as עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) complementing Adam’s leadership. This foundation carries into the New Testament: 1 Timothy 2:12 restricts authoritative teaching to men, grounded in creation (2:13); Ephesians 5:22-33 calls husbands to lead as κεφαλή (kephalē, head), mirroring Christ’s headship; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 upholds order in worship, citing “the law.” As I have argued, these texts form a cohesive pattern of male leadership and female complementarity, rooted in God’s design.

In the church, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 reserve eldership for men, aligning with creation’s order. Women contribute vital roles, such as teaching other women and children (Titus 2:3-5), and supporting their husbands, including deacons’ wives who exemplify godliness (1 Timothy 3:11), as Article 8 will explore. Complementarianism also reflects the gospel: Ephesians 5:32 ties marriage roles to Christ and the church, a theological depth egalitarianism often misses.

We must acknowledge complementarianism’s abuses, like domineering leadership, which Aimee Byrd critiques in Recovering from Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Biblical complementarianism, however, calls men to servant leadership (Mark 10:45 – “The Son of man came… to serve”) and honors women as “joint heirs” (1 Peter 3:7). It offers clarity – men lead, women complement – while affirming equal worth, avoiding the ambiguity of egalitarian sameness.

Practical Takeaways: Living Out God’s Design

How can we apply these truths? First, study Scripture diligently. Examine Genesis 1-3, 1 Timothy 2, and Ephesians 5. Second, engage egalitarians graciously. Listen to their concerns about women’s empowerment but anchor discussions in Scripture’s clear patterns. Third, live out biblical roles: men, pursue sacrificial leadership (Ephesians 5:25); women, embrace complementary callings (Titus 2:3-5); churches, teach roles clearly to foster unity. Finally, seek unity in the gospel, even amid disagreements, trusting God’s design brings flourishing. Reflect: How can we honor God’s design while valuing all gifts? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Conclusion: Trusting God’s Word

Sarah’s fictional struggle reflects real churches seeking biblical clarity. Egalitarianism’s passion for equality and gifting is admirable, but its selective hermeneutics, dismissal of creation order, and cultural accommodation falter against Scripture’s witness. Complementarianism, rooted in Genesis’ blueprint, New Testament clarity, and the gospel’s beauty (Ephesians 5:32), offers a faithful path for men and women to flourish as equals with distinct callings. Our next post will explore biblical masculinity, defining how men lead humbly in a confused culture. What challenges do you face in understanding gender roles? Join the journey, and let’s study Scripture together, praying for wisdom to reflect Christ and the church.