Isn't the Priesthood in the OT proof that God uses only men?

Q: Isn't the fact that God only chose men for the Priesthood in the Old Testament proof that God only uses men in leadership? After all the Priesthood is equivalent to the Pastorhood in the church.

A: Although God originally started with only one tribe in Israel for the Priesthood and only the men from that one tribe were eligible, his intention was not for the Priesthood to stay with only one tribe and only the men. In Exodus 19:5-8, God makes a covenant with the nation of Israel. He says that if they obey his covenant, he will make them a holy nation and a kingdom of priests to him. In verse 6, God says that Moses is to speak to the "sons of Israel". The Hebrew word here means in the widest sense that includes the entire nation of Israel. So the priesthood was not meant to stay with only one tribe and with only the men. The priesthood was meant to extend to the entire nation.

We too as the church have been given the privilege of being a kingdom of priests. This is not limited to the men, but women as well are part of the priesthood. The historic Christian teaching is that the priesthood of the believers extends to every member of the body of Christ. So the OT priesthood that merely started with men cannot be used to exclude women from teaching the bible to the body of Christ because even the OT priesthood was never meant to stay with males alone.

Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?

Q: Isn't there a law in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men? Why are you disregarding this law?

A: There are many who take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men and therefore forbids them from ministering in the church using their God-given gifts. However we need to test this “prohibition” to see if it is a situation in the Ephesian church (a local situation) that Paul is stopping or if it is a law that Paul is establishing for the body of Christ. Up until 1 Timothy 2 was written, there was not even one scripture that says that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men. Is Paul constructing a new law for the church? Well, let’s test that.

The Bible tells us that for a matter to be established or when a person is charged with sin, there must be two or three witnesses. Duet. 17:6 and Deut 19:15 establish the law that a charge of sin must be accompanied by two or three witnesses. Jesus confirmed this rule in Matthew 18:16 by expanding its use to the need to have two or three witnesses when one is establishing a fact that would bring a charge against a person. Later Jesus is accused by the Jews of not having a valid testimony because he is testifying about himself and that would make only one witness. One witness alone is invalid according to the OT law. In John 8:16-18 Jesus himself says that he has the required two or three witnesses to establish the validity of his testimony and so Jesus himself even submits to the law of two or three witnesses.

Paul also places himself under this requirement as he establishes in 2 Cor. 13:1 that his third visit to the Corinthians meets the requirement of the two or three witnesses in order to establish a fact. Then in Philippians 3:1 Paul tells us why it is so important to have the second or third witness. He says that it is a safeguard for the church.

I have noticed that this is indeed a safeguard for the church when the cults come at us with one scripture to try prove their point. Where is the second witness to establish a doctrine? I also have noted that no charge of sin and no law is ever established without at least the second witness. Whatever God has told us something that we are forbidden to do, you will never find it in scripture without the second witness. Why? Because there is safety in having the prohibition given with a second witness so that scripture is not taken out of context and without another support to establish the fact. That is God’s established way and a second witness is always there in scripture when God has established a law for us to follow.

So here we are at 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Those who say that this prohibits women from teaching the bible to men are left without a second witness. Which second scripture gives a second witness and says that women cannot teach men? Why is there no second witness? Every law that God established has a second witness and if 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a law then this is the only law that does not have the second witness and that is out of God's order and therefore invalid. This doesn’t of course mean that the passage has no meaning - it just means that it does not have a universal meaning of a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. No second witness = no law. We cannot get around this because it is God’s law to have a second witness and this is for our safety.

Wasn't Adam the only one given God's prohibition in the garden?

Q: Does the fact that Adam was the only one given God's prohibition in the garden prove that he was given a role of authority that the women was not given?

A: This is a common question and comes from a common misconception about the text in Genesis 2. However scripture does not say that Adam alone was given God's prohibition in the garden and that he had authority over Eve. Let's have a look at scripture to see what it actually says. In Genesis chapter two, God gives the prohibition to Adam saying "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Now who told Eve what she could eat and what she was not allowed to eat? Nowhere does it say that Adam told her so why do we assume that it was Adam and not God himself? The reason is because we have been taught the tradition that Adam alone was given God's word and because he was the only one who heard directly from God, this means he has an authority that the woman does not have. This translates into a teaching that the man alone has the "doctrinal guardianship of the church".

Let's look at scripture carefully to see if this is true. In Genesis 3:3 Eve says concerning the forbidden fruit, "God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." Now the first thing that we notice is that there is something additional here in Eve's repeating of the commandment that is not included in the prohibition to Adam. She said "neither shall you touch it". Some say that she added her own thoughts or interpretation to what she heard Adam tell her. Others say that Eve added to the words of God that Adam gave her. Let take these options and test them by the word of God.

Could Eve's words be her own interpretation of God's command so that she added her own thought "this means I shouldn't even touch the fruit"? According to the inspired words, this is not possible. Why? Because the inspired words say "neither shall you touch it, lest you die." If Eve was quoting her own thoughts she would have said "neither shall I touch it". She would not have talked about herself in the third person. The inspired words show that she is not adding her own personal thoughts, but attributing this quote to God because the inspired word says "you".

The next option that we need to consider, is did Eve add to God's word? That is a very serious charge. God tell us several times in his word that we are not allowed to add to his words. Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 commands us not to add to his commands and Proverbs 30:6 says "Do not add to His Words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar".

Would a perfect, sinless woman be guilty of adding to God's words? What reason did she have to lie about what God said? There was no reason for her to lie and add to God's words what he did not say. Also God did not reprimand her for adding to his word and he did not find her to be a liar. Eve was not proved to be a liar, so this theory cannot be right. So what is the remaining option that we have?

The only other option we have is to believe the testimony of the first woman who spoke the words in her sinless, perfect condition. Her testimony is that God spoke these words. The words of God are quoted two ways in scripture. They are either quoted directly as God spoke them, or else they are quoted by the person as a testimony that God said...

Eve said "God said..." and she quoted the words that God gave her. These words are slightly different than what God told Adam, because God knew that the woman would be tempted if she touched the fruit, so for her, he also told her not to even touch the fruit, lest it she be tempted to eat. Why is it that we do not believe Eve? It is because it is easier for us to believe that Eve lied about what God said, than to believe that she too heard the prohibition from God. You see, if Eve also heard directly from God, then Adam had no more authority than she did. And if Adam had no more authority with the word of God than the woman did, then the foundation of the teaching that the man alone has been given the responsibility of teaching doctrine to the church because only the man was given God's words in the garden of Eden, is torn down.

Did God speak directly to Eve? It is her testimony that he did. Which option will you choose to believe - that a perfect woman without sin, without provocation and without reason, chose to lie to the serpent about what God said, or will you choose to believe the words of scripture as they are written, that God spoke to the woman and that from creation on, men and women are spiritually equal and have equal authority regarding God's word?