FOOTNOTES: 1 Pentecostal churches have from their beginnings been experience-oriented rather than doctrinally- oriented, not having any strong or consistent theological foundation. Therefore, they could easily reject, ignore, or override Biblical arguments against ordaining women.

2 Probably the most famous Pentecostal woman preacher was Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944), who had male and female “preachers” as young as five preach at her Angelus Temple in Los Angeles, one of the first megachurches. In 1926 she disappeared the same day the engineer for her radio station (a married man) disappeared. Thirty-six days later she showed up in Mexico with a fishy story about having been “kidnapped and tortured and held for ransom,” and then escaping after a “thirteen mile walk through the desert.” (Her shoes showed no sign of this, but rather were grass-stained.) Five witnesses later said they had seen her during her mysterious absence at a cottage in Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA, which had been rented by her chum the radio engineer under a phony name.

I. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THOSE IN FAVOR OF ORDAINING WOMEN

1. Some women feel that they are definitely called to the ministry, and they say this calling should not be ignored or disobeyed. They believe that no church has the right to deny them the opportunity to utilize their spiritual gifts in the ministry, since (as they believe) the Holy Spirit has equipped them for ministry.

This argument in essence assumes that an individual has the right to decide, with inerrancy, what their calling is, regardless of the meaning of Scripture or the reasoned conclusions of the church leadership. In effect, in claiming the right to determine for themselves whether they are called to the ministry, they are claiming the same infallibility as the Pope, and without speaking ex cathedra, no less. One of the main functions of proper Biblical ordination is the existing leaders of a church determining whether a prospective ordinand is Biblically qualified to hold office. If a true church determines they are not qualified, and they think they are, they are mistaken and out of order, male or female.

Years ago we had a young man in a church I pastored who was convinced he was called to the ministry. He seemed like an earnest, faithful family man, and we wanted to follow up on his desire for ministerial training. But we soon found out from his family that one night when his wife was very sick in bed upstairs, and he (in good health) was sitting downstairs watching TV after midnight, he began hollering for her to come downstairs, because he “needed” her. Finally she woke up, crawled out of bed painfully, and stumbled downstairs to see what he needed. He (in a day when most TV’s did not have remotes) wanted her to change the channel for him and get him a soda, since he did not want to bestir himself to get up! Evidently this was his idea of how a wife should “submit” to her husband, ignoring Eph. 5:25-28 and Col. 3:19.

Should the leaders of our church have just blindly accepted his statements that he was “called to the ministry” when this and other incidents clearly showed that he was not even a reasonable, kind, loving husband, let alone pastoral material? At the very least, this young man would have a lot to learn and change before he could even be considered for leadership, starting with developing some common sense and kindness, and humbling his exaggerated feelings of self-importance.

If the Bible clearly teaches that women are not to be priests (and we will discuss this in detail later), and a woman sincerely thinks she is called to the ordained priesthood, both cannot be right, if you hold the Bible to be the inspired, authoritative, inerrant Word of God. But if you believe that the Bible does not forbid women’s ordination, or that some (or all) of the Bible is not authoritative and inerrant, and can be overridden or ignored at will, then the woman’s belief that she is called could be valid. The heart of the matter is whether you take the Scriptures seriously and submit to their authority, once you establish that the Bible forbids women’s ordination.

The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He does not inspire Scripture to say that a woman may not teach in the church or exercise authority over men, and then turn around and “call women into the priesthood.” Those women who sincerely think they are called are sincerely wrong. We must not allow our desire not to offend others overtake our faithfulness to the requirements of Holy Scripture. If a woman thinks she is called, it may be that she truly has a valid desire and ability to teach or evangelize others, or do other good work in the church, but she is poorly taught or mistaken as to what that the limits of that work should be. She is sincerely wrong in aspiring to the priesthood, and we who are faithful to the Word should
patiently and properly teach all such ladies. A place of service should be found for gifted, Godly women; but that place is not as a priest.

2. Some feel that women are only prevented from being ordained because of Paul’s “outmoded, patriarchal” rabbinic view that “women are inferior to men.” Feminist authors and others say that in prohibiting female spiritual leadership over men in I Tim. 2:11-14, Paul is inserting his fallible human opinion into the Bible. In other words, they do not believe that this part of the Bible is inspired and authoritative for all time. They further claim that Paul is saying that the fact that women should submit proves they are inferior.

In the first place, women are not inferior. In fact, they are superior – at being women, as men are superior at being men. How many men could give birth? How many men could keep up the never-ending pace of motherhood? How many men could cook, clean, wash, mother, perhaps work outside the home, and then put up with a grumpy mate who comes home and expects his dinner promptly? And where would many churches be without the dedicated, hard work of the ladies of the church? The fact that God has differing roles for men and women, known as a functional or economic difference, does not mean one is inferior to another, or less exalted. Proverbs 12:4 says that “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband” – not a doormat.

Furthermore, some women are clearly superior in spiritual gifts. For example, some women can speak and teach better than any man in their church. This does not mean they should be ordained as priests, but neither does it mean that their abilities should not be used in some way to serve Christ. The most prayerful people in some churches, sensitive to the Word and Spirit, are female. Their prayer ministry is crucial to the work of the church.

Some women have far better writing ability, or are more scholarly, than any of the men in their church. They can write books and teaching materials and do important research without usurping authority over men. In fact, the best and most Biblical book I have ever seen on the subject of the place of women in the church is by a woman: Women and the Word of God, by Susan T. Foh (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1979), available at Amazon.com and elsewhere.

Again, consider the case of an honest, hard-working, Godly private in the army who is under the command of a drunken, rude, selfish sergeant. Is the private inferior? No, he has different privileges and responsibilities than the sergeant because of his rank, but he may be a vastly superior person. If he had been in the army as long as the sergeant, he would have probably made higher rank than him. It is a difference of function, not inferiority.

Christ prayed “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Since He was submitting to the Father here, does this mean that he was inferior? Of course not! He is God in the flesh! As sound theologians say, in His earthly incarnation, he “emptied Himself” (Phil. 2:6-8) – that is, he voluntarily divested himself of the free and independent exercise of His visible attributes as Deity. This was a matter of function or economic difference, not inferiority.

Even more importantly, consider that in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the Son is subordinate to the Father (I Cor. 11:3, 15:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11; Eph. 1:20-22), and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13-15; Rom. 8:27, I Peter 1:12). Does this mean the Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father? No, all three members of the Trinity are of the same substance and essence, divine, co-equal and co-eternal. The fact that the Trinity has decided on their particular division of labor or role is a difference of function, not a matter of inferiority.

3. Perhaps the favorite argument of those who favor ordaining women is Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” It is often alleged this verse teaches that women should be treated equally with men in terms of ministerial ability and function, and further, that wives no longer have to be in submission to their husbands. In fact, the point of this passage is not equality of vocational opportunities, or equality of privileges, function, or role, but rather oneness in Christ. If this scripture indeed meant there is no longer any distinction between these three groups at all, then it would directly clash with such scriptures as I Cor. 12:28, I Tim. 2:9-12, I Tim. 3:1-14, Gal. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, and many more, all of which teach hierarchy, i.e., that there are defined roles and certain rights and responsibilities in both church and marital organization. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

In context, this verse is talking about salvation, one’s relationship to God, not about how the church should be structured or how marriages should be ordered. Justification by faith, and not by keeping the law, is in view from the first verse of the chapter onward. If you take passages out of context, you can end up with all sorts of strange doctrines and heretical teachings. To find what the Bible teaches about church or marital organization, you go to passages that deal with these subjects, not to passages about justification by faith. The main point of Gal. 3:28 is the equal standing before God of all believers- that whether you are Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female- regardless of your nationality, social status, or sex- all believers in Christ are children of God, justified by faith, and one in Christ (Gal. 3:24-28). It is not teaching that you may be a priest regardless of whether you are Jew or Gentile, slave or free, or male or female, but rather that anyone, regardless of category, can be a Christian, forgiven of their sins and united to Christ. (By the way, if it did mean what the feminists say, then in a culture where they had slaves, you would have an absurd teaching- how could a slave, whose every day is taken up with working for his master, be a priest?)

4. The New Testament doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” is sometimes advanced as an argument for ordaining women. The Scriptures do indeed speak of this priesthood: “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6); “Ye . . . a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5). “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9). They claim that since all believers are priests, there is no reason for women not to be ordained.

In reply, first, these verses refer to us all having access to God through the blood of Christ, and our role in offering ourselves as spiritual sacrifices. Second, the Old Testament priesthood as full-time worship leaders is no longer in effect (Heb. 7:12). Third, using that same logic (that because all believers partake of the priesthood of all believers, women should be recognized as
priests), you could with equal “logic” say that all male believers qualify to be priests! Obviously, the church is not meant to be all chiefs and no Indians; these passages are not referring to a professional calling or vocation, but to the daily life of all Christians. They are completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

5. Some say that the fact that some have been converted or edified by the ministry of women preaching is a strong argument in favor of ordaining women. Well, it is also true that some have been converted under the preaching of unsaved men; should they be ordained? God even spoke through an ass to rebuke Balaam!

Some have been saved and strengthened under the ministry of men who later turned out to be whoremongers or practicing homosexuals or false prophets with unsound doctrine. Does this mean these types of men should be ordained, or remain ordained? The Bible speaks of people who preach with terrible motives, and yet Paul rejoices that Christ is preached even in such cases (Phil. 1:15-18); yet this in no way justifies sin or disobedience or evil motives. If these women clerics who seemed to have had good results had spent an equal amount of time and effort in prayer and support activities for properly called, gifted male clerics, perhaps God would have been pleased to see to it that far more would have been converted or strengthened. “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice” (I Sam. 15:22).

6. Another favorite argument of those favoring ordaining women is that in the Bible, there are several cases of prophetesses, which they try to say are about the same as women preachers. Let us comment briefly on every such case in the Bible, in the order of its appearance:

(1) “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances” (Ex. 15:20). It is obvious from the passage that Miriam was a worship leader among the women, not over the men. When she later took it upon herself to usurp authority over Moses, God struck her with leprosy (Numb. 12:1-15).

(2) “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time” (Jud. 4:4) Deborah judged during a time of national spiritual declension and wickedness, when “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD” (Judges 4:1). The Bible further describes the time of the Judges as follows: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25). In other words, this was a time when there was no order or law, and people just did whatever they wanted, right or wrong; so drawing any conclusions about proper roles for female leaders from this passage is highly suspect. Some scholars go so far as to say that the fact that Deborah was a prophetess and a judge at this time was a symptom of God’s judgment on Israel, for not having any qualified male leaders to rule.

There is no suggestion that Deborah sought to be a judge - “the children of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judges 4:5) -- although in fairness, it must be stated there is also no suggestion she did not. But it is clear from Chapter 4 that when there was a need for military leadership, she turned to Barak, a man, and asked him to take over. After the victory, she sings a song of victory with Barak (Jud. 5) in which it is clear Barak, not Deborah, won the victory: “Then he made him that remaineth have dominion over the nobles among the people: the LORD made me [Barak] have dominion over the mighty” (Jude. 5:13).

(3) “So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah” (II Kings 22:14; also II Chron. 34:22). During a time of religious ignorance, even the law of God was not available because of sin and neglect. A copy of the Law of God (no doubt the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament which includes the Ten Commandments) is found while repairing the long-neglected House of God. The King listens to the reading of warnings of God’s judgment from the book, becomes alarmed, and orders the high priest and other officials to go inquire of Huldah what the nation should do. There is no evidence Huldah sought to usurp authority over men or lead in any way; she simply gave a word from the Lord when asked by the men who came to her from the king seeking her advice. (II Kings 22:1- 23:25).
(4) “And, lo, I perceived that God had not sent him; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me: for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him . . . My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear” (Neh. 6:12, 14). Nehemiah mentions that evil pagans Tobiah and Sanballat hired a false prophet against him, and that among their cohorts were “Noadiah and the rest of the prophets” who sought to intimidate him from doing the work of the Lord. Not a good passage to quote in favor of ordaining women!

(5) “And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son” (Isa. 8:3-4). Nothing is said about to whom she prophesied or what she said; just that she had a son, who was given a prophetic name.

(6) “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:36-38). Anna was a Godly old widow whose main activities were fasting and prayer, and speaking with people who were awaiting the Messiah about the Lord. There is no suggestion that she usurped authority over men, preached, or led worship; indeed, she lived during a time of very male-prejudiced rabbinical patriarchalism.

(7) “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20). Obviously, Christ says that this is only a case of an evil, impure woman who calls herself (i.e., is not) a prophetess.

While we are talking about prophetesses, we should mention Acts 2:17-18: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Peter says this prophecy applies to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. The prediction that daughters and haindmaidens “shall prophesy” does not support womens’ ordination. There is no statement here that this prophesying would be public teaching in the church. It could be limited to womens’ meetings, to children, in informal private settings, while under male supervision, or other times and places; but there is no hint here that this would involve usurping authority over men.

7. Yet another argument for women preachers is that Aquilla and Priscilla instructed Apollos: “And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and
Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). This was not public teaching or leading worship; the husband and wife team merely gave good teaching to Apollos privately. There is no mention here whether one of the couple did most of the teaching, or it was more or less equal; it may well be that Aquilla did the lion’s share of the teaching, with Priscilla helping.

Some like to point to the fact that in two of the three times Paul says in later epistles to salute or greet them, Priscilla is mentioned before Aquilla, which they say may indicate Priscilla is the more prominent, or notable, or important, of the two (Rom. 16:3, I Cor. 16:19, II Tim. 4:19). But it could also be that Paul just liked her cooking! And in Acts, the order is reversed – Aquilla
is mentioned first in two cases, Priscilla in one case (Acts 18:2, 18, 26). Even if the main teacher was Priscilla, it was done in the presence of, and with the permission of, her husband, and with the willingness of Apollos; this was not a public meeting of men and women, nor did Priscilla take it upon herself to single-handedly usurp authority over Apollos.

8. The fact that deacon and evangelist Phillip had daughters who prophesied is cited by some as proof of the validity of female priests. “. . . we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy (Acts 21:8-9). All this passage tells us is that the daughters of Philip spoke in some way for God – Witnessing to other women? Teaching children? Explaining the Gospel or showing God’s will to males and females? (Given that they were single and living at home, the customs of the day suggest they probably did not do the latter.) But there is no evidence they usurped authority over men, led worship, publicly preached, or had any other kind of ongoing public ministry.

9. Finally, there is the argument that times have changed, society has changed, women are freer and better educated now, and what women are allowed to do has changed; therefore, since women were (allegedly) kept from the priesthood primarily because of societal expectations, they should now be allowed to be priests. This is basically arguing that you should ignore what the Bible says and go along with whatever is current in society. The changes in society do not mean specific Biblical prohibitions have changed. “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89). The church is not put here on earth to simply mimic what the heathen world is doing, but to be salt and light. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2).

II. ARGUMENTS, BIBLICAL AND OTHERWISE, AGAINST ORDAINING WOMEN

1. Specified duties of the priestly office include teaching (I Tim. 3:2) and ruling (I Tim. 5:17). Women are clearly prohibited from ordination to the priesthood in I Tim. 2:11-12:“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Here in one of the Pastoral Epistles, that is, a book of the Bible with particular emphasis on church organization, order and decorum, we have a clear statement that a woman is not to teach in the assembly, and not to presume to oppose or supersede male authority.

Of course, when this passage states that women are to be “in silence,” it does not mean women must remain silent all the time in church; they may sing in the choir, participate in responsive readings, give treasurer’s reports, and so forth; but women are clearly prohibited from teaching in the assembly.

The biblical reasons why women cannot teach/preach in the assembly, nor exercise authority over men, are given in the next two verses, 13-14: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Whether we know enough Scripture to realize the importance of these arguments, or whether we think these reasons are not just or rational, does not matter. The Bible says these are valid reasons.

The creation order applies to the church as well as the home. The fact that man was created first, and then the woman as his helper, is by God’s choosing, and no amount of arguing can change that. God has built into the very order of creation than man was designed to lead, and woman to come under his leadership. The husband’s headship in the home and male authority in the church are both part of God’s economy. (This is not to say that women must submit to all men-- just their husband. And this does not mean that all males can run the church-- just those who meet the Biblical requirements and are properly ordained.) Though Eve was deceived in the fall, when Adam failed in his leadership and sinned along with Eve, he was still held responsible as the leader. So along with greater privilege, males on the other hand have greater ultimate accountability (James 3:1).

The question may arise, “But what if the male authorities are doing a lousy job, or are crooked or immoral? Shouldn’t women do something?” Yes, they should seek another church, not seek to overturn God’s revealed way of doing things.

2. Another clear passage is I Cor. 14:34-35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a
shame for women to speak in the church.” Women are not even allowed to interrupt teaching in the church with questions, let alone teach publicly. They are to respect their proper role in the church. Interestingly, Paul concludes this chapter by stating that anyone spiritual will agree that these teachings are God’s will, and that anyone who disagrees is ignorant: “ If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (I Cor. 37-38).

3. In giving the qualifications to the ministry, the Bible always uses masculine pronouns, and always assumes the candidates are male. In I Tim. 3:1-7, it says, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

In II Tim. 2:2, it says, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men [not faithful people!], who shall be able to teach others also.”

And in Titus 1:5b-9, it says, “. . . ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

4. There is the matter of conflicting leadership roles. If a women were pastor of a church, and her husband was not a priest, how could she obey him as head of the house (Eph. 5:22-24, 33; Col. 3:18; I Peter 3:1, 5-6) when he is obliged to submit to her as pastor (Heb. 13:17, I Cor.16:15-16)? (Of course, neither type of submission – people to pastor, or wife to husband – means there is a duty to submit if the one in authority tells the other to do something clearly contrary to Scripture, such as stealing, committing adultery, stop going to church, etc.) For example, what if one of them wanted to tithe 10% of their income, and the other wanted to give 25%? What if they differed as to whether to accept a call to a different church? Or what if the husband didn’t like her preaching or leadership, and wanted them to attend another church? How could she lead him, or he lead her, in areas where they differ? Who is the final authority when they cannot agree? Who decides?

5. There is the matter of representing a male God. Some say that since God is referred to by masculine pronouns, and Jesus was a male, therefore anyone who represents God to the congregation should be male. Actually, this is probably not a strong argument, since scripture does not explicitly say that a priest “represents” God,3 and the entire Church, priests included, is referred to as the “bride of Christ.” Also, some point out that that both male and female are ontologically created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27, 9:6; moral accountability, intellect, sensibility, will, awareness). So there are better arguments available, but this is food for thought.

6. There is the matter of Biblical example and tradition. Every Old Testament priest was male, and every spiritual and military leader was male, except for a few mentions of prophetesses, which we have already dealt with. The Bible never refers to “the God of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel;” it is always “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Why? Because God has decreed male headship. No woman was chosen by God to write any book of the Bible. And every Apostle and pastor-elder in the New Testament was male. Women taught other women, and children, and there is the one case of a husband and wife team teaching a man privately in Acts 18. But there is not one single case in Scripture of a woman teaching in a synagogue, temple, or church service, or of a woman properly taking authority over a man in the church.

Some say that this is a weak argument, since Jesus lived in a Jewish context, where all leaders were male. But Jesus did not hesitate to ignore established tradition when there was no Biblical ground for it – for example, He allowed Mary to sit as His feet as He taught the Word (Luke 10:38-42), in a day when women were not even allowed into the Jewish Temple services, but were required to stay in the outer court. And He spoke openly to the Samaritan woman (John4:7-9), contrary to Jewish custom. Had He wished to break with tradition by appointing a female Apostle or priest, He no doubt would not have allowed Himself to be hampered by any incorrect tradition (Mark 7:8,9,13).

Feminists point out that since all priests, apostles, and pastor/elders in both the Old and New Testaments were Jews, would it not be equally valid to say that all ministers should therefore be Jewish? In reply, we point out, first, that all Old Testament leaders and priests were not Jewish. The Old Testament priest Mechizedek was not Jewish. Adam, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth, Peleg, etc. were not Jewish. Even all the children of Abraham, “father of the faithful,” and Isaac were not Jewish. It was not until after Isaac had all his sons that the Twelve Tribes of Israel came into being. Second, not all New Testament pastors were Jewish. Titus, who Paul left in charge of ordaining pastor-elders in Crete, was not Jewish (Titus 1:5, Gal. 2:3). The churches Paul set up, though often working through scattered Jewish groups at first, were in Gentile (non-Jewish)

3 However, one paraphrase (which should never be relied on for doctrinal matters), The Message, mistranslates II Corinthians 5:20 as “God has given us the task of telling everyone what he is doing. We’re Christ’s representatives.” The Greek word means "to serve or travel as an ambassador or emissary,” something quite different. areas- Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Thessalonica, etc. – and many of the pastors among these were Gentiles.

That being said, the fact that Old and New Testament priests, leaders, Apostles, and Pastors were all male does not, by itself, necessarily preclude the logical possibility that there may be a place for ordained females, if there were no Biblical prohibition; but it nevertheless is a strong implied indication of what God’s will is, especially when Biblical arguments which are unassailable are considered.

Notice that the arguments for women ordinands are based on misunderstanding the Scriptures, misapplying the Scriptures, saying the Scriptures are not inerrant, saying parts of the Scriptures are merely human prejudice, ignoring the Scriptures, or ignorance of the Scriptures. Therefore, it is not surprising that you find sentiment for ordaining women highest in denominations where Biblical rejection or ignorance are highest, and lowest where the Bible is believed and taught as the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

Let us remain faithful to God’s inerrant Word, and not allow the ordination of women to the priesthood. Let Godly women with spiritual gifts be co-laborers in God’s work (Phil. 4:3; Rom.
16:3, 12), but not as ordained priests and bishops. “But I would have you know, the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I
Cor. 11:3).

Canon Jeff Williams is an Atlanta-area Anglican priest and attorney