Can Women Become Pastors?: Why the Egalitarian View Isn't Biblical

The theological debate concerning the roles of men and women within the church and the home is often categorized into two main perspectives: complementarianism and egalitarianism. Complementarians assert that while men and women are equal in dignity and value, they possess different roles. In contrast, the egalitarian view maintains that there are "no role differences" and "total equality of roles and potentials for roles," especially concerning authority in church leadership and the home. Both sides agree that Genesis 1 through 3 serves as the "theological foundation" for understanding the relationship between men and women, making a careful analysis of these chapters essential.

The core argument distinguishing the two views revolves around Genesis 2 and 3: Egalitarians argue that male authority only appears in Genesis 3, after the Fall, as part of the curse, and should therefore be overturned. This article argues that this core egalitarian premise is wrong because the biblical text suggests that Adam held a "godly, tensionless leadership" role in relation to Eve in Genesis 2, as part of God's good creation design, prior to the Fall.

The Truth of Genesis 1: Equal Value and Shared Dominion

Any assessment of gender roles must begin with the indisputable equality established in Genesis 1. In this creation account, men and women are both created in God's image, which is the "highest statement about humanity and human value" possible. Both sexes are considered to have "equal dignity and value". Furthermore, Genesis 1 establishes shared dominion. The command to "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heaven" uses plural pronouns and imperative verbs, including both man and woman in the responsibility to "subdue it" and have dominion over the earth. There is "no distinction in role or authority" between the man and the woman in Genesis 1.

Limiting a woman's sphere of influence or authority to subdue creation—for instance, restricting her strictly to housework—would seem wrong because she was told to have dominion over the earth. However, the primary focus of Genesis 1 is the relationship of mankind to creation, not the internal relationship between male and female. While Genesis 1 establishes equality of essence and value, it does not rule out potential role differences that become evident in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2: Foundational Role Differences Pre-Fall

Understanding why the egalitarian view isn't biblical requires careful examination of Genesis 2. The egalitarian view hinges on the belief that Genesis 2 is neutral and "has nothing about Adam's authority" in relation to Eve. However, key complementarian arguments drawn from the order and flow of the narrative suggest differences in role and authority were present before the Fall.

The Order of Creation: Adam Formed First

God created Adam first, significantly before Eve. This order suggests a role difference. In Hebrew culture, the concept of primogeniture (the firstborn having authority or leadership) was culturally strong and present both in their scriptures and surrounding cultures. Ancient readers would have been "very likely to understand Adam as having some higher authority due to his being made first".

Egalitarians often push back by citing biblical exceptions where the younger leads the older (e.g., Jacob, David, Joseph). However, these examples are notable precisely because they are exceptions to the presumed rule of primogeniture. The fact that Adam was made first, with no scriptural statement indicating an exception to the cultural expectation of leadership associated with that order, supports a pre-Fall difference in role. Furthermore, the New Testament author Paul appears to rely on the sequence of creation ("Adam was formed first, then Eve") as relevant to the nature of the male-female relationship.

Adam Received the Command and Responsibility

God gave the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to Adam alone. Since Eve was not yet created, Adam had to communicate this command to her. This delegation and subsequent teaching role place Adam in a position of relational leadership. This point is strengthened by the fact that God approached Adam first after the couple sinned, calling to "the man" and holding him to account, even though Eve sinned first. This implies Adam had a greater responsibility.

Eve Was Made For Adam

Eve was created to be a "helper fit for him" (ezer kenegdo). While the word ezer (helper) does not inherently imply subordination (as it is often used of God, the ultimate helper), the overall flow of the passage suggests Adam's leadership. The passage emphasizes that Eve was made for Adam ("neither was man created for woman, but woman for man"), a point the New Testament relies upon to establish the man's leadership role. The concept is that Adam was incomplete alone, and Eve was made to correspond to him.

Adam Named Eve

Adam exercised a leadership role by classifying and naming the woman isha (woman). This act occurred after God brought the animals to Adam for naming, which is widely acknowledged as an act of dominion and authority over creation. Even if "woman" is a classification rather than a proper name (as egalitarians argue), Adam was classifying her, distinguishing her from the animals. The general pattern in Scripture is that the person doing the naming is typically the one in authority, such as a parent naming a child. For Adam to name Eve twice (first as "woman" and later as "Eve," mother of all living) indicates that God intentionally gave Adam this act of relational authority, demonstrating a degree of leadership.

The cumulative impact of these factors—order of creation, receipt of commands, creation for Adam, and the act of naming—suggests that there was a limited, tensionless, godly leadership role for the husband within the marriage relationship before the Fall.

Genesis 3: The Authority Precedes the Curse: Can Women Become Pastors?

The central pillar of the egalitarian argument is that the husband's authority only appears in the curse of Genesis 3:16 ("he shall rule over you"). They argue this is a negative, post-fall description—like labor pains or thorns and thistles—to be minimized or overturned. However, this view fails if Adam already held a position of limited authority in Genesis 2, which is another reason why the egalitarian view isn't biblical.

Adam's Greater Scope of Responsibility

The structure of the Fall narrative and the resulting curses confirm Adam's higher representational authority. The New Testament consistently holds Adam primarily responsible for the Fall, stating that "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). Adam's curse impacts all of creation and all of mankind (cursed ground, toil, death penalty), whereas Eve's curse mainly impacts women (pain in childbirth, conflict in marriage). This greater scope of representation is consistent with Adam having authority to speak for or stand for both of them.

Interpreting the Curse: Control and Conflict

The language in Genesis 3:16 does not introduce a new role, but rather introduces sinful conflict into the existing roles. The word "rule" (mashal) is consistently used throughout the Old Testament to mean authority and dominion, not sexual intimacy (as some egalitarian scholars attempt to argue). The term for "desire" (teshuqa) in Eve's curse ("Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you") should be interpreted in light of its usage in Genesis 4:7, where God warns Cain that "Sin's desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it".

Therefore, the likely meaning of Genesis 3:16 is that Eve's desire is now one of ruling or controlling her husband, and the husband's response will be to dominate her instead. This dynamic is not God's ideal prescription, but a description of the painful conflict resulting from the Fall. Just as farming was good but made harder by thorns and thistles, marriage roles were good, but now they are much harder and involve conflict.

The solution is not to eliminate the structure of roles established in Genesis 2, but to alleviate the pain and abuse associated with the curse. We must fight against the "abuse of those roles either in rebellion or in domineering authoritative behaviors," not the nature of the pre-existing, godly authority itself.

Conclusion

The argument that the egalitarian view is compatible with Genesis 1-3 fails primarily because it misinterprets Genesis 2 as neutral and fails to acknowledge the pre-Fall indications of Adam's limited, godly leadership role. Understanding why the egalitarian view isn't biblical requires recognizing that while Genesis 1 establishes the fundamental and irreversible equality of value and shared dominion over the earth for both men and women, Genesis 2 establishes different roles within the husband-wife relationship.

Adam's position of first creation, command reception, and naming rights suggests a degree of authority that existed harmoniously before the Fall. Genesis 3 then curses this harmonious structure by introducing conflict, resulting in the woman's desire to control and the husband's tendency toward domineering abuse. To reverse the curse, one must reverse the pain and abuse, not the inherent structure of the relationship established in creation. So can women become pastors? They can, but it's not Biblical.

For more biblical insights and resources on living out Scripture in daily life, visit www.livethearklife.com.