No, the Bible does not teach the ordination of women to the office of pastor (also called elder and overseer). The Bible teaches and the historic Christian Church confesses that in his good wisdom, our Triune God ordered creation with Adam as head of his wife, and as he re-creates us in Christ, he continues that pattern with male-only ordination to the sacred ministry of Word and sacrament.
What did Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa announce?
On November 1, 2026, Pastor Char Brodersen, grandson of Chuck Smith, gave the first of two messages (1 and 2) on why Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa now says women can be pastors:
“Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa believes and practices the ordination of both men and women to pastoral ministry as a recognition of the priesthood of all believers and the unique gifting of individuals by the Holy Spirit to continue the ministry and mission of Jesus in the church and in the world. We believe that both men and women are created by God, made in his image, and are called by God from the beginning of creation to partner with him in building for his kingdom. Both men and women are essential in ministering to God and to one another in the work of partnering with God in his redemption through Jesus Christ, serving and ministering to the church, to the home, and to the world.”
This is clearly egalitarian (or “mutualism” as Brodersen prefers), which is the common Christian confession 1) that men and women are fully equal in creation and redemption, but then this is turned to mean 2) God calls women and men to share authority equally in the home, church, and world.
This is a rejection of the complementarian position that affirms #1 above but also says 2) men and women have distinct authority and roles in the home and church, in particular, that ruling and authoritative teaching is by men. This rupture between the two positions was at the heart of the Calvary Chapel Association’s Heartland Region’s statement.
What did Chuck Smith teach about women being pastors?
This is also a repudiation of what the Calvary Chapel movement has taught for decades. What did Chuck Smith teach about women pastors? In his C-2000 years series on 1 Timothy 2, he taught “Paul is…prohibiting the woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, and that would be in spiritual things and in spiritual issues.” Hardly a mysoginist, at the same time, Smith affirmed Titus 2 as saying, “There is a place of teaching for women, the teaching of the younger women: how to love their husbands, how to keep their homes and to talk in godliness and righteousness.” His conclusion was that, “The only thing that is prohibited here is the teaching of men and usurping authority over them in spiritual things.” One final key that has relevance for Char Brodersen’s interpretation. On 1 Timothy 2:13, Smith said the important thing out loud:
“Now Paul isn’t talking about a local cultural situation because he goes back to the beginning.”
Why a Reformed Pastor is Responding to Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa
So why does this Reformed pastor care?
As a son of the Jesus Movement, I was stunned and saddened. My dad came to Jesus in the mid-late 70s through Pastor Chuck and “Big Calvary.” We Christians know what it means when I say that through Pastor Chuck and Calvary Costa Mesa, God brought new creation into the Hyde family: the old has passed and the new has come! Amen?
My first memory of church is Calvary Costa Mesa. I was dropped off in the second floor Sunday school room crying. Then I remember Friday night movie nights in the sanctuary and driving home in the family wagon with my big brother. Later my family had a lot of dysfunction and sin that led to me not attending church outside of midnight Masses with my grandparents on Christmas Eves until I was 17. In those years, though, what little I remember from Calvary, stuck in my conscience and I eventually came to Jesus myself!
I would listen as a 17-18 year old to Pastor Chuck daily. His messages got me through some tough times as a teen. When I attended college at SCC, I was down the road from Calvary and attended Sundays, Monday nights with Greg Laurie, I believe it was Wednesday nights with David Hocking, as well as the school of ministry. I listened to the radio religiously. I was in the bookstore a lot.
Now, I’m a Reformed pastor, so if Pastor Chuck and I were to sit down face-to-face, we’d obviously have a lot we would disagree on doctrinally. But I wish I could’ve told him, “Pastor Chuck, I am where I am because of you. I love you,”
I’m responding because this matters. Calvary Costa Mesa is where the Jesus Movement exploded in SoCal and it’s seen as the flagship of a worldwide movement. It’s a leader in the evangelical world. We’re living in trying times spiritually and culturally and we need churches like Calvary to be light in darkness and a buoy on the waves.
A positive case for male-only ordination
A lot of my members have come to me and a lot of people online especially here in SoCal have messaged me if I’ve seen the news and if I was going to say something about female pastors at Calvary Chapel. I’ve wrestled with how. I’ve seen the typical shock and awe YouTube thumbnails. I’ve seen a couple of really heartfelt videos as well.
There is so much that Char Brodersen says and I’ve watched his sermons a few times and even clipped out sections. But it’s just too much. What I want to do is make a positive case for why Scripture teaches male-only ordination to the ministry and forbids the ordination of females as pastors, with some comments about Pastor Brodersen’s sermons along the way.
1. What Do Genesis 1–2 and the Image of God Teach About Men, Women, and Office?
Humanity was created in God’s image is male and female. We all affirm this. Yet before the Fall, Adam already held a prophetic, priestly, and kingly task as the covenant head. This means he was a representative of all humanity. This is why it’s Adam’s sin, not Eve’s, that Scripture treats as the basis of our fallenness: “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (From. 5:19). More on this below.
Again, Genesis 1:26–28 gives the image and the dominion mandate to both Adam and Eve. Amen. Yet, here’s where things begin to diverge. Even before the Fall, Adam had certainly roles.
He had a prophetic role (naming). God “called” (qara) the light “Day” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 10), for example. His naming was an act of authority. Interestingly, we then read in chapter 2 that Adam “called” (qara) the creatures by name (2:19–20), he called the suitable helper” (’ezer) for him ‘ishah (2:23), and after the Fall, he called her chavvah (3:20). Added to this, in contrast to Brodersen’s retelling of Genesis 2, Adam received the command of life in 2:16–17 before the woman was made (2:18–22). So yes, he actually was the bearer of God’s word to Eve. She bore the image and came alongside Adam to help in the stewardship of the garden. Her worth was equal to Adam’s; but that’s not the point at issue. Adam had a distinct office or official task as the covenant head and representative.
He had a priestly role (guarding). Adam was put in the garden “to work it and keep it” (‘abad and shamar, 2:15)—before Even was created. These are the same pair that later describe the Levites’ service at the tabernacle (Num. 3:7–8; 8:26; 18:5–6). After the Fall, the cherubim “guard” (shamar) the way to the tree of Life (3:24). Adam was the garden priest.
He had a kingly role (judging the serpent). The serpent as a “beast of the field” (3:1), was under human dominion (1:28). So yes, Adam and Eve had a part to play, but it is Adam, being right there “with her” (3:6) who does nothing. She sinned first (1 Tim. 2:14), but it is Adam’s sin in not guarding the garden that becomes our problem as the human race. The promised Seed does what he did not (3:15; cf. Rom. 16:20).
Most importantly, Adam was the covenant head of the entire human race, including Eve. Eve ate first (3:6; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3), yet their eyes open only after Adam eats (3:7). God then calls for the man first to judge, in the singular (3:9).
Why does this matter? Because what we say of Adam, we say of Christ. Sin entered “through one man” (Rom. 5:12–19); “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). Our doctrine of creation, humanity, and Fall is not a “secondary issue;” it is a gospel issue because already in the garden. Adam was “a type of the one to come” (Rom. 5:14). And as we’ll see, Paul argues women are not permitted to teach from this order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13 (“Adam was formed first”).
2. Why Did Jesus Choose Only Men as Apostles?
The Twelve were men by Christ’s choice, the replacement for Judas had to be a man, and the office is permanent enough to be written on the foundations of the New Jerusalem.
The choice. Jesus appointed the Twelve after a night of prayer (Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
The replacement. Acts 1:21: “so one of the men (andrōn) who have accompanied us… must (dei).” Andrōn is the genitive plural of anēr, the word for an adult biological male. The women disciples were in the room (1:14) among the 120 (1:15). Several of them met Peter’s stated test: with Jesus from Galilee (Luke 8:1–3; 23:49, 55) and witnesses of the resurrection. But the two put forward were males: Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias (1:23).
Paul. Sometimes you’ll hear in response, “But Paul didn’t qualify.” Paul recognized his extraordinary case in the history of redemption: “Last of all, as to one untimely born (ektrōma), he appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:8)…“the least of the apostles” (15:9).
The end. Twelve foundations bearing “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). See also Matt. 19:28; Eph. 2:20.
Was Jesus only accommodating first-century culture?
It’s usually brought up that Jesus accommodated to Jewish culture. We agree that he broke convention with women freely in his ministry (John 4:27; Luke 8:1–3; 10:39). But accommodation doesn’t explain Jesus’s and the church’s choice.
The Twelve were all Jews too. Must pastors be Jewish?
Again, we agree that the Twelve correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel on a redemptive historical level (Matt. 19:28). But, later when church offices opened to Gentiles (e.g., Titus was a Greek, Gal. 2:3), the requirement that elders be men stays.
Wasn’t Junia an apostle (Romans 16:7)?
There are two disputes regarding Junia: first, whether the phrase means “notable among” or “well known to” the apostles but more importantly, whether apostolos here has its wider sense of a church’s authorized messenger like Titus and Epaphroditus (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). See the lexical work by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf of Tübingen University in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 1:407–47. His big insight/conclusion is that there is a distention between the apostolate (the Twelve as commissioned by the risen Lord as official witnesses of the resurrection) and “apostles” more generally as those sent on behalf of churches as messengers, of which women could be chose to do so.
3. Were the women who followed Jesus preachers or apostles?
No, although the women’s witness to Christ was real and honored. It was personal witness, not the official proclamation of those sent as his representatives. These examples do not prove that women can preach.
Scripture makes a distinction between the general office of believer and the special offices. The Reformation reinvigorated this distinction to help: the general office of every believer (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 32: prophet, priest, and king in Christ) and the special offices (Belgic Confession, arts. 30–31).
What did the women who followed Jesus do?
They did many wonderful things for the work of the kingdom:
They traveled with him and funded the mission (Luke 8:1–3).
They were last at the cross and first at the tomb (Mark 15:40–41, 47; 16:1).
Mary Magdalene was sent to tell the brothers (John 20:17–18).
The Samaritan woman’s word brought her town to him (John 4:28–30, 39).
How does the New Testament distinguish personal witness from official witness?
Chosen witnesses. The apostles are “witnesses chosen beforehand by God” (Acts 10:41; cf. 1:2, 8).
The commissions. The Great Commission is given to the Eleven (Matt. 28:16–20). So is the breathing of the Spirit with the authority to forgive and retain (John 20:19–23).
The official list. Paul’s roll of resurrection witnesses (1 Cor. 15:5–8) names Cephas, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, the apostles, himself. The women who saw him first are not on it. Their testimony was true; the list is of public witnesses.
All speak, some hold office. Those scattered “went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4), while the apostles kept to “the ministry of the word” (6:4). Priscilla, with Aquila, took Apollos aside and explained the way more accurately (18:26). Philip’s daughters prophesied (21:9). Again, these should not be used as evidence for an affirmative answer to the question can women preach.
4. Why were the seven chosen in Acts 6 all men?
When the Jerusalem church needed officers to care for widows, the apostles told the church to choose seven men. If there was ever a moment to appoint women, this was it.
Acts 6:3: “pick out from among you seven men (andras) of good repute.” Andras again, not the generic anthrōpous.
All seven named are men (6:5). The apostles prayed and laid hands on them (6:6).
The need was the daily care of widows (6:1): a ministry to women. Yet the church chose men.
Which women could the Jerusalem church have chosen?
There were any number of women available to be chosen to serve the widows:
| Woman | Where the New Testament names her |
|---|---|
| Mary, the mother of Jesus | Acts 1:14, in Jerusalem with the disciples |
| Mary Magdalene | Luke 8:2; John 20:1–18 |
| Mary the mother of James and Joses | Mark 15:40; often identified with Mary of Clopas (John 19:25) |
| Mary and Martha of Bethany | Luke 10:38–42; John 11–12 |
| Salome | Mark 15:40; 16:1; often identified as the mother of Zebedee’s sons (cf. Matthew 27:56) |
| Joanna, wife of Chuza | Luke 8:3; 24:10 |
| Susanna | Luke 8:3 |
| Mary, mother of John Mark | Acts 12:12, a house in Jerusalem where the church met |
Wasn’t Phoebe a deacon (Romans 16:1)?
Like with “apostle,” words have meaning given their content. Even if we grant that there were deaconesses, the point is that we’re dealing here with the first appointment of church servants in which the apostles specified men and more importantly, the issue of pastors and elders.
5. Why did Paul send Timothy and Titus to appoint elders?
The men Paul authorized to organize the churches in Crete and Ephesus, and to whom he wrote the instructions on office, were Titus and Timothy.
Titus was left in Crete to “put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
Timothy was charged to remain at Ephesus and guard the teaching (1 Tim. 1:3), after being set apart by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), and told to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).
The other delegates Paul names for such work are also men: Tychicus and Artemas (Titus 3:12; 2 Tim. 4:12).
Able women were at hand. Priscilla was in Ephesus (Acts 18:19, 26; 2 Tim. 4:19). Paul commends Phoebe (Rom. 16:1–2) and names Euodia and Syntyche as fellow laborers (Phil. 4:2–3). But they are never described as having been ordained as female pastors.
6. What does “husband of one wife” mean in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6?
Paul’s qualifications for elders and overseers are apostolic requirements, and they assume a man. He knew how to write the female equivalent and did so two chapters later.
What does the Greek of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 say?
| Reference | Greek | Point |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Timothy 3:1 | ei tis episkopēs oregetai | “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer.” Tis is indefinite and common gender |
| 1 Timothy 3:2 | dei oun ton episkopon… einai | “The overseer must be.” The dei of necessity is here |
| 1 Timothy 3:2 | mias gynaikos andra | “A one-woman man.” Anēr (adult male), not the gender-neutral anthrōpos. If women were included, he could have used the feminine parallel “one-man woman” (the exact phrase he uses in 1 Tim. 5:9) |
| Titus 1:6 | mias gynaikos anēr | Same phrase for elders |
| 1 Timothy 3:12 | mias gynaikos andres | Same phrase for deacons |
| 1 Timothy 5:9 | henos andros gynē | “A one-man woman,” of enrolled widows. The exact mirror, in the same letter |
| 1 Timothy 3:4 | tou idiou oikou kalōs proistamenon | “Managing his own household well.” Masculine participle, but more importantly, this reflects the biblical worldview as well as first-century expectation of male headship in the family. |
| 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9 | didaktikon | Able to teach. Context is king. This follows directly on the heels of 1 Tim. 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach”). |
One final note: there is a contrast with deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13). Paul explicitly adds a qualification for the women [deaconesses]/or the deacon's’ wives (v. 11); but, he makes no such distinction for overseers—a telling omission if women were eligible.
Doesn’t “if anyone” in 1 Timothy 3:1 include women?
The indefinite pronoun “anyone” (tis) opens the sentence (v. 1), while verse 2 then says who qualifies.
Isn’t “one-woman man” just an idiom for faithfulness?
Yes, it is about faithfulness. It also assumes a man. Paul uses the reverse form when he means a woman with one husband (5:9).
Would that bar single men from being elders?
The phrase regulates a married man’s fidelity; it does not require marriage. The sex of the officeholder, though, is assumed.
7. Do spiritual gifts mean women can be pastors?
The gift lists addressed to whole congregations in the New Testament (Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4) do not erase the line between all believers and those ordained to serve them. This is a big point by Brodersen.
1 Corinthians 12. “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (12:28): he gives an order, not a level field because he goes on to ask rhetorically, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (12:29). Each question opens with mē, which expects the answer “no.” Women are no more qualified to serve as ordained, authoritative teachers in the church any more than every single male in the congregation.
Ephesians 4. Christ “gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as shepherds and teachers” (4:11) for the purpose of equipping the saints for service (4:12). The gifts in this passage are particular people given to the church; it’s not a menu of what’s available for all.
Romans 12. “Having gifts that differ” (12:6). The chapter’s point is difference within one body (12:4–5). Just because women are not qualified to serve as pastors, does not mean that they do not have gifts from the Spirit.
Gift is not office. The assumption is that all the gifts in the church mean everyone holds public office. Those who hold public office of elder/overseer/pastor/teacher (“officers”) are tested first (1 Tim. 3:10), then appointed (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), and set apart with the laying on of hands and prayer (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22). All are gifted as members of the general office of believer; not all hold special office within the church.
Finally, the same letter the commends gifts is the same letter that regulates the gifts. The apostle who lists the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 also orders their use in chapter 14 (14:26–40).
How do women use their gifts in the New Testament?
Women’s gifts are real and commanded into use. Older women are to be “teachers of what is good” (Titus 2:3–5). Women prayed and prophesied like Huldah in the Old Testament (2 Kgs. 22; 1 Cor. 11:5; Acts 21:9). Joel 2 says “your daughters shall prophesy” (Joel 2 quoted in Acts 2). In the Old Testament Deborah even judged Israel. Paul’s co-workers in Romans 16 include Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis. Ordination to special office is not the only way the church honors a gift.
If the Spirit gives a woman the gift of teaching, who are we to refuse it?
The Spirit who gives the gifts also gave 1 Timothy 2–3 to regulate their use. The question is where the gift is exercised, not whether it exists.
8. Does the priesthood of all believers mean women can be ordained?
Costa Mesa’s statement names the priesthood of all believers as the key reason it ordains women as pastors. We agree that in the New Covenant every believer has equal access to God. But to conclude that every believer may therefore be ordained is a category error.
What is true and worth celebrating about the priesthood of all believers?
Every believer belongs to the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Every believer has bold access to the throne (Heb. 4:16; 10:19–22).
Every believer is one in Christ, meaning, male and female alike are heirs (Gal. 3:26–29).
Why doesn’t the priesthood of all believers reach to church office?
One that’s missed is that Israel was already a kingdom of priests. When 1 Peter 2:9 calls us this, it quotes Exodus 19:6. This means the whole nation of Israel was priestly, and yet God still set apart Aaron’s house for the official, public ministry at the altar.
Korah made this exact argument. “All in the congregation are holy, every one of them… Why then do you exalt yourselves?” (Num. 16:3). His premise was true, but his conclusion was wrong, as it is among mutualists and egalitarians.
Peter keeps the distinction himself. The apostle who called all believers the royal priesthood also addresses “the elders among you” as a distinct group charged to shepherd the flock (1 Pet. 5:1–5).
It proves too much. If being a member of the priesthood of all believers entitles females to ordination as pastors, then it entitles every believer, including the new convert, children, and the man who fails the 1 Timothy 3 test. In fact, what I want to say to Char Brodersen and all women out there is this: most men are excluded by the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 too! “Not many of you should become teachers” (Jas. 3:1).
Galatians 3:28 is about who inherits salvation not who holds office in the church (3:26, 29).
Doesn’t this create a clergy class the Reformation abolished?
The Reformation abolished a mediating priesthood, not the special ministry of the Word. See Belgic Confession, arts. 30–31.
9. Does Galatians 3:28 support women’s ordination?
No. Paul’s point is not that everyone has a sociological equality and that therefore everyone can do anything in the church. His point is that in God’s sight all ethnic, economic, and social classes such as male and female are irrelevant for your standing in God’s sight.
What does Galatians 3:28 affirm?
The gospel transforms the status of women because grace restores nature. We are all new creations in Christ and we’ve all been baptized with the Holy Spirit. But on the basis of this some, like Clarence Boomsma in the Christian Reformed Church that my URCNA came out of, argued that to oppose women’s ordination is to be guilty of injustice to women and disobedience to God’s Word (Male and Female—One in Christ: New Testament Teaching on Women in Office [Baker, 1993], 17).
What does “neither male nor female” not mean?
But in Galatians 3, it’s not just equality that’s posited, but that in God’s sight, “there is not” (ouk eni) male or female, there is not racial or social classes. These are irrelevant in one’s standing with God. If Paul is making a sociological argument of egalitarianism, there would be no way to exhort different people in the church such as husbands, wives, slaves, children since all are “equal.”
Where does the egalitarian reading of Galatians 3:28 lead?
This is why the acceptance of feminist, egalitarian grounds of there being no social distinctions between males and females is always the first step towards the acceptance of queer theory that is rooted in breaking social norms and taboos such as women’s ordination. You can begin to see the writing on the wall of where that’s going to end: so-called “full inclusion” because we’re all one, after all.
10. Was 1 Timothy 2:12 only about the Artemis cult in Ephesus?
Brodersen asserts that Paul’s prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority over the church was a private affair between him and Timothy and that it was for the purpose of solving a local, temporal issue. In other words, 1 Tim. 2:12 does not have enduring, universal authority and application in the church of Jesus Christ.
In response, Paul grounds his apostolic injunction that women may not teach in an authoritative way in the church in the most public, the most universal way possible: this is the way God ordered the world (1 Tim. 2:13–14).
“Paul grounds his apostolic injunction that women may not teach in an authoritative way in the church in the most public, the most universal way possible: this is the way God ordered the world.”
Therefore, the historic Christian church has engaged in a responsible reading of this text because it is about the responsibility of the church’s elders/overseers/pastors/ministers to teach in an official capacity. Unlike the extraordinary, itinerant ministry of New Testament prophets, whose accountability and evaluation happened on-the-spot, in worship (1 Cor. 11:5, 14:32), the ordinary path for church elders/overseers/pastors was to be tested in advance, called (Rom. 10), and ordained with the laying on of hands and prayer as authoritative representatives of the church (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9).
What is the argument from Artemis and Ephesus?
Brodersen and the progressive argument is that this is 1) a personal letter between friends [yet, it’s in the canon!] and 2) that it deals with a hyper-local issue only and is not universally applicable. Some local Artemis followers, it is surmised, and most likely single women because Artemis was single, were going around teaching false doctrine.
In S. M. Baugh, “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42/3 (1999): 443–60, he explains that Artemis of Ephesus was a virgin huntress. In Paul’s day the Ephesians presented her as a symbol of chastity, not as a fertility or mother goddess (452).
What actually was the cult of Artemis in Ephesus?
As Baugh demonstrates from sources, her cult (worship) was an ordinary civic religion with festivals, sacrifices, banquets, processions, and games (Baugh, “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus,” 453).
Was first-century Ephesus a feminist city run by women?
In response to the progressive reconstruction that Paul was dealing with what we would call a feminist or matriarchal society, S. M. Baugh, in “The Apostle Among the Amazons,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 153–71, states that nobody has demonstrated historically that first-century Ephesus had a feminist culture. He says writers simply take it for granted (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 154). He points out that a female deity by herself produces no feminist society, for example in Athens (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 154 n. 6). Priestesses served all over the Greco-Roman world (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 168–69). In fact, men ran Ephesus, including the Artemis cult. In Acts 19, the silversmiths’ guild, the Asiarchs, and the town secretary were all men while an all-male council and citizen body oversaw the cult (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 158–59). As well, Baugh points out that the Artemis cult had male priests.
What did the priestesses of Artemis actually do?
They appear to have adorned the cult statue and paid for festivals, were often unmarried girls, and some served limited terms fixed by the council (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 169). As well, there was no “high priestess of Artemis.” That claim, Baugh argues, mixes up the Artemis cult with the provincial imperial cult; the inscriptions have no “high priest” or “high priestess” of Artemis at all (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 165–66). This is a long way from women teaching doctrine with authority! The New Testament offers no direct evidence of women teaching publicly in Ephesus (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 158). It's the opposite: the false teachers were preying on households and weak-willed women (2 Tim. 3:6). There are even several men known among Ephesian sophists, rhetors and philosophers, none were women (“The Apostle Among the Amazons,” 158).
Baugh translates about twenty inscriptions and draws this picture (“Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus,” 456–58):
One priestess a year, so no “multitudes” running around and infecting the church.
Nineteen of twenty have Roman names, mostly from elite families.
They are named as daughters, not wives, so probably unmarried girls under about fourteen. Hardly the type to domineer over men.
The office came with a 5,000-denarii donation, and priesthoods were auctioned.
They were free citizens, not temple slaves.
Baugh likens these elite daughters who carried out civic and financial duties as Artemis’s priestesses, to Rose Bowl queens or Miss Teen America (“Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus,” 460).
Baugh concludes: the myth of the Artemis of the Ephesians cult is a prop for a radical rereading of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (“Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus,” 460).
Did Paul borrow “saved through childbearing” from the Artemis cult?
Brodersen relies heavily Sandra Glahn, Nobody’s Mother, to say 1 Tim. 2:15 was a local issue related to Artemis.
G. K. Beale has published a response: “Contextualizing the Controversial Instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Response to Sandra L. Glahn, Nobody’s Mother,” Themelios 50, no. 2. While Glahn rejects the Kroegers’ mother-goddess picture, she argues instead that Artemis was known as a helper in childbirth. On her account, “saved through childbearing” was a local saying Paul turned against the cult, which makes verses 11–14 local and temporary. Yet Beale went through her cited sources and found nowhere “saved,” “through,” and “childbearing” together, exactly or nearly. The slogan Glahn supposes has zero evidence behind it. Further, the whole reconstruction of Artemis-as-midwife is based on scant and thin evidence. By his count, Beale counts only 4 of Glahn’s 48 literary sources as relevant, and only 1 of 31 inscriptions calls Artemis a midwife, and even that one is questioable. Beale points of that it’s no surprise that she barely handles verses 13–14 and the creation order and Eve’s deception. It’s only two pages! She does not discuss what gar (“for”) is doing in the opening of verse 13.
Does Paul mention Artemis anywhere in 1 Timothy?
Paul never says a word about any Artemis cult. In 1 Tim. 1:20 and 2 Tim. 2:17 he actually deals with false teachers by name and it has zero to do with Artemis. So, if these men were locally teaching false doctrine, why didn’t Paul forbid men locally from teaching? Why only women? Because it’s not a local problem.
What does 1 Corinthians 14:33–35 add?
In 1 Cor. 14:33b–35, Paul speaks similarly as 1 Tim. 2 about women being silent. Paul says they are to be silent in regards to the authoritative weighing of prophecies. His ground for this is to appeal to “all the churches of the saints” and “the law” (including Gen. 2 cited in 1 Tim. 2)
What does authentein mean in 1 Timothy 2:12?
The argument is made that these women were engaging in “domineering authority” or commanding things “against the will” (authentein). The standard Greek lexicon, BAGD, gives the gloss “have authority, domineer over someone” (p. 121). It’s not some special word imbued with meaning that only these women were engaging in. Almost all translations gloss the same. In fact, Leland Edward Wilshire, The TLG Computer and Further Reference to ΑϒΘΕΝΤΕΩ in 1 Timothy 2.12 in New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 120-134 said the gloss “domineering” is “speculative.”
Here’s the point: let’s say that it actually means these Artemis cult women are forcing things down everyone’s throat by force, and that the word is always used negatively, then why wouldn’t Paul ban this kind of thing everywhere? Or, if it’s this local situation only, then it’s not okay for women teachers to act this way but it is for men? Or it’s not okay to teach this way in Ephesus, but in Philippi go for it? This is special pleading for the most clear verse in Scripture against women teaching and having authority in the church over men in order to get rid of it.
Andreas J. Köstenberger has shown that the 48 syntactical parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in extra-biblical literature as well as one in Acts 21:21 with negated finite verb (ouk epitrepō) + infinitive (didaskein) + oude + infinitive (authentein) always results in a negative/negative or positive/positive pattern (“Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15 (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville.” JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005): 44). And since didaskein (to teach) is positive, authentein (exercise authority) is certainly positive as well. Words that are joined by the conjunction oude (“nor”) often define one another; thus, Paul is communicating the idea of authoritative teaching in the public assembly.
In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul uses the same two concepts of teaching and exercising authority to characterize the office of elder: “elders who rule…who labor in teaching.”
Chrysostom notes that in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul is not speaking of women’s subjection in all things to men, but is referring to what happens within the church in its official, authoritative teaching. And in the context of all the women honored in Romans 16, Chrysostom asks, “In what sense then does he say, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach?’” His answer: “He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching.” He points out, in fact, that many women taught, for example, Priscilla with Apollos. He makes the distinction: “It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly.” Women are honored by Paul “because along with teaching she performs other ministries besides, those in the way of dangers, in the way of money, in the way of travels.”
On what does Paul ground 1 Timothy 2:12?
But Paul clearly grounds his prohibition in pre-Fall creation, not some local issue!
Conclusion
I want to say to Char Brodersen that I pray you listen to those who are crying out in the wilderness and change course.
I pray that an army of godly men and women within Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa will be able to get through to their leaders and bring them back to the Word and the historic practice of the Christian Church.
If you are a Calvary Chapel person, and you feel burned and left behind by your church, you will have a home here at Oceanside United Reformed Church. We’re way different than any church you’ve probably attended, but we’re here for you.
© 2026 Daniel R. Hyde. Permission is granted to reprint this article in full, unaltered, for non-commercial use, provided the attribution below is included and links to the original. For excerpts, translations, or commercial use, see Permissions.
To attribute: Daniel R. Hyde, "Can Women Be Pastors? A Response to Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa" https://www.danielrhyde.com/articles/can-women-be-pastors. Used by permission.