Is the Son of God inferior to God? The answer to this question, after the incarnation, is both “yes and no.” The Son of God is indeed inferior to God, according to His assumed human nature, but He is not inferior to God, according to His divine nature. To understand this answer, it is necessary to understand that the incarnate Son of God has two natures, a true divine nature and a true human nature, united in the one person of the Son of God. At the incarnation, the eternal Son of God took to Himself a true human nature. In theology, this union of Christ’s two natures in one person is called the “hypostatic union” which refers to a “personal union” of true God and true man.

The Hypostatic Union

Consider the hypostatic union in a bit more detail. The term “hypostatic” is from a Greek word, hupostasis, or person, and refers to the manner in which a rational nature subsists. The term “person,” according to Boethius, refers to “an individual substance of a rational nature.”[1] Others have defined it as “subsistence endowed with reason.”[2] “In general, ‘person,’ is defined as a substance, or individual nature, endowed with intelligence, subsisting by itself, really and truly distinguished from others by its own incommunicable property.”[3]

To understand the hypostatic union, it is necessary to reflect on the terms “nature” and “person.” The difference between a rational nature and a person is that a person refers to the particular way in which a rational nature acts. Rational natures do not act. Only persons act. Or to put it differently, rational natures subsist as particular persons, which act distinctively within and by those natures. 

Consider three examples of rational natures that subsist as persons: God, angels, and human beings. God’s being is rational, and His nature exists in three ways, persons, or subsistences: the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, and the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. Angels also have a rational nature, and each individual angel subsists as a particular person, or way of being and acting as an angel. Each human being also has a rational nature, and each individual human being exists as a particular person, or way of acting as a human.

This brings us to the Lord Jesus Christ. At the incarnation, the eternal person of the Son of God assumed a human nature. The eternal Son of God is nothing other than the very being of God subsisting personally, and thus at the incarnation, the whole divine essence, subsisting in the manner of the Son, joined Himself to a human nature. The Bible speaks of the incarnation of the Son of God in various ways. It says “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14), “came in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2-3), “took the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7), was made a “partaker of flesh and blood” (Heb 2:14), and was “manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16).

The Son of God is indeed inferior to God, according to His assumed human nature, but He is not inferior to God, according to His divine nature.

But how are the divine and human natures united in Christ? What sort of union is it? It is not an essential union, in which the two essences are blended together. It is not a covenantal union, such that the two natures simply agree together. It is not a natural union as in the union of the human body and the soul. It is not an external union, like the union of God with the angel of the Lord, or of angels to their bodily manifestations.  Rather it is a true personal union.

But what is meant by personal union? The great Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin helpfully describes the personal union of Christ’s two natures. He said that God the Son (the divine nature subsisting) assumed to Himself a human nature, which does not subsist in the manner of a human person. It is crucial to grasp that the human nature of Christ is not a human person and has no personal subsistence of its own. If the human nature subsisted, it would be a human person, not a divine person. If it is claimed that the human nature subsisted as the Son of God, then the human nature would subsist as God, which is impossible because the finite cannot grasp or contain the infinite. Rather, Christ’s human nature, a true body and a reasonable soul, which did not subsist personally, was assumed into the person of the Word, or the Son, and was so joined to Him that the human nature became “substantial with the Logos.”[4]

Turretin goes on to explain the way this personal union happens. He says that the union of the two natures is by a “personal sustenation,” activity, or operation, of the Son of God within and by the human nature, such that Christ’s human nature really is one of the two natures of the Son of God.[5] Put differently, the action of God the Son within, throughout, and by His rational human nature is nothing other than the very person of God the Son, according to His human nature. Herman Bavinck, quoting Thomas, writes, “The human nature in Christ must be considered as though it were a kind of organ of the divine nature.”[6] The Triune God so acts upon a human nature that the resulting action, or personal operation, within, throughout, and by that nature is that of the Son of God.

The Incarnate Son

The hypostatic union means that after the incarnation and for all eternity afterwards, the eternal Son of God really has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, acting according to both natures at the same time. It means that when Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, she really carried God the Son in her womb. In Luke 1:31-32, the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.” Therefore, Mary is rightly called “Theotokos,” the God-bearer.

The incarnation further means that when Christ died on the cross for our sins, the Son of God Himself really died for our sins, according to His human nature. The divine nature cannot die. But God the Son can die, according to His human nature by virtue of the hypostatic union. 1 Corinthians 15:3 says, “Christ died for our sins.” Without the hypostatic union, all we would be able to say is that a human nature died for us. But a human nature in itself cannot possibly atone for our sins. We must be able to say that the eternal Son of God Himself died for our sins, according to His human nature, and He did so by virtue of the hypostatic union.

But while it is true that the Son of God truly assumed a human nature into His person, it is also true that He continued to be God, and to act according to His divine nature. Thus, while the Son of God came down from heaven, and was born of a virgin, He did so in such a way that He never left heaven (Jn 3:13). The Son, according to His divine nature, remained in heaven and fully present in every place, even when He became flesh and dwelt among us. Similarly, though the Son of God ascended into heaven, He did so in such a way that He never left earth  (Matt 28:20). Though the Son of God, according to His human nature, went back into heaven, His divine nature is present with us forever.

The Son as Not Inferior to God

The Bible speaks in ways that must be understood in terms of what has been called “partitive exegesis.” The Second London Confession 8.7 says, “Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.” Thus, sometimes, the Bible speaks of Christ and His actions in terms of His divine nature, and sometimes it speaks of Christ and His actions according to His human nature. Other times, it speaks of the human nature in terms of the divine nature and the divine nature in terms of the human nature (Jn 3:3; Acts 20:28). This is appropriate because of the real personal union of the two natures.

We must be able to say that the eternal Son of God Himself died for our sins, according to His human nature, and He did so by virtue of the hypostatic union.

Many passages of Scripture teach that Christ, the Son of God, is not inferior to God, but is in fact God Himself. Scripture says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1); He declares, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30), which does not mean that they are the same person, but that they share the same essence. Hebrews 1:8 says, “of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;” and after the resurrection, “Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 10:28); (Heb 1:8); He is declared to be the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev 19:16). The Bible teaches that Christ created everything: “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (Jn 1:3); He is present everywhere: “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt 18:20); He is all powerful: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18). He does not change: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8); He forgives sin: “Your sins are forgiven” (Lk 7:48).

None of these attributes belong to the Son’s human nature, but only to the Son, according to His divine nature. Therefore, the Son of God, according to his divine nature is equal to God. But that is not the whole story.

The Son as Inferior to God

The Bible teaches that the Son of God, according to His human nature, is in fact inferior to God. And that must be the case, since how could the Son of God identify with us, substitute for us, or represent us, unless He assumes a human nature, which is inferior to God? The ancient creeds recognize this fact. The Athanasian Creed declares that the incarnate Son is “Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ” (emphasis added). Therefore, the incarnate Son stands in a twofold natural relation to God the Father. With respect to His divine nature, He is equal to the Father, but with respect to His human nature, He is inferior to the Father.

The Bible plainly teaches that the Son, according to His human nature, is inferior to God. He changed and grew: “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Lk 2:52); He experienced hunger: “He was hungry” (Matt 4:2); He experienced thirst: “I thirst” (Jn 19:28); He became tired: “Jesus wearied” (Jn 4:6); He was tempted: “He Himself suffered when tempted” (Heb 2:18); He was weak: “He was crucified in weakness” (2 Cor 13:4); He died: “He breathed His last” (Lk 23:46). None of these things can be true of the divine nature. They can only be true of Christ’s human nature, which is inferior to the divine.

One text that shows the inferiority of the Son of God, according to His human nature is 2 Corinthians 8:9, which says, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” The Son of God, prior to the incarnation, was rich only, but at the incarnation, He became poor, according to His human nature. Yet it is important for us to understand that He only became poor (according to His human nature) in such a way that He remained rich (according to His divine nature). The only way we can become rich through Christ’s poverty is if He also remains rich! Thus, the Son of God, according to His human nature is inferior to God the Father, but He is equal to God the Father, according to His divine nature.

Summary and Conclusion

To summarize, Jesus Christ is true God and true man, united in the one person of the eternal Son of God. Therefore, He is equal to God the Father, according to His divine nature, but inferior to God the Father, according to His human nature. This means that the incarnate Son of God is simultaneously weak and all powerful, ignorant and all knowing, located in space and fully present everywhere, dependent and independent, creature and Creator, limited and infinite, temporal and timelessly eternal, changing and unchangeable, subject and sovereign, visible and invisible, and so forth.

This is absolutely necessary for our salvation. If Christ were less than God, He could not save us. If He were more than man, He could not be our substitute. JC Ryle puts it well:

I find a deep mine of comfort in this thought, that Jesus is perfect Man no less than perfect God. He in whom I am told by Scripture to trust is not only a great High Priest, but a feeling High Priest. He is not only a powerful Savior, but a sympathizing Savior. He is not only the Son of God, mighty to save, but the Son of Man, able to feel….

Had my Savior been God only, I might perhaps have trusted Him, but I never could have come near to Him without fear. Had my Savior been Man only, I might have loved Him, but I never could  have felt sure that he was able to take away my sins. But, blessed be God, my Savior is God as well as Man, Man as well as God – God, and so able to deliver me – Man, and so able to feel with me.[7]

[1]    Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 29, a. 1.

[2]    William Den Boer and Reimer A. Faber, eds., Synopsis of a Purer Theology, vol. 1 (Davenant: China, 2023), 70.

[3]    Ibid., 71.

[4]    Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 312.

[5]    Ibid.

[6]    Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2006), 307; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3, q. 4, a. 2, ad. 2.

[7]    JC Ryle, Holiness (Charles Nolan: Moscow, 2001), 238-239.

If the last few years have forced evangelicals to reconsider anything it is the nature of authority in the world and in the church. On Monday, March 16, 2020, President Trump announced that a corona virus was spreading throughout the world in such a way that we were facing a pandemic of epic proportions. He and federal health officials proposed a “15 days to slow the spread—or flatten the curve” of the virus in hopes of minimizing the impact of the looming disaster.

As we know, those 15 days quickly expanded into months, and then years of governmental officials restricting the activities of citizens, businesses, and institutions—including churches. Very soon, governors began issuing executive orders telling churches that they could not meet, or that they could only meet according to governmental guidelines—which often included restrictions on singing or having no more than 10 people present (as in the case of Virginia).

Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam held a press conference December 10, 2020 and said,

“Christmas is two weeks away. The holidays are typically times of joy and community. We gather together, we celebrate our faith, and we celebrate with family.”

“But this year we need to think about what is truly the most important thing. Is it the worship or the building? For me, God is wherever you are. You don’t have to sit in the church pew for God to hear your prayers,” Northam said. “Worship with a mask on is still worship. Worship outside or worship online is still worship.”

He called on faith leaders to “lead the way and set an example.”

Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom in California issued an executive order forbidding churches from meeting. Later he said that churches could meet but under very severe restrictions. His restrictions continued until Grace Church and Pastor John MacArthur successfully won a judgment against him in the Supreme Court.

These, and similar actions by civil authorities, forced churches and church leaders to reconsider what Scripture teaches about how the church relates to the state. Specifically, who has the right to tell churches what they can and cannot do, when they can gather, and how they can gather?

Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. He and He alone is Head of the Church as well as the Head of every local true church.

Though that was a painful process for many churches, and some negotiated those challenges better than others, I think it is safe to say that for many it helped clarify what has always been true but can no longer be taken for granted, and that is that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. He and He alone is Head of the Church as well as the Head of every local true church.

I am confident that no church would deny that as an article of faith, but learning afresh to consider what it means practically—and what it may cost to honor His lordship in the face of opposition or persecution—has been a blessing to many churches.

Jesus Christ is Head of the church. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, the “Son of the living God,” Jesus responded by saying, “On this rock I will build MY church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Paul introduces the idea of Jesus being the “head of the church” in six passages in his letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians. In Ephesians 4:16 he says that as we mature in sound doctrine and learning to speak the truth in love, we are able to “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” In Ephesians 5:23 Paul writes, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”

In Colossians 2:19 Christ is called “the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”

Christ is Head of the church in the sense that He is the One “who stands over it” in the sense of being the basis of its existence, the source of its life, and the authoritative Ruler over it.[1]

What this means is that every church—regardless of its polity—is ultimately a Christocracy. Jesus is Lord of the church. He is the Head of every true church. This truth, rightly understood, rightly guides church leaders in both addressing a church’s internal affairs and determining its mission.

Internal Affairs

When questions, challenges, or controversies confront a congregation the primary goal in responding to them should be to determine the mind of Christ. What does the Lord Jesus have to say on this? What is the way of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:17) to resolve this? Christ’s mind and ways are revealed to us in Scripture. There the job of church leaders and church members is to discern what the Bible says a church should do in any situation.

Granted, some situations are clearer than others, but no decision of any significance should be taken without first grappling with biblical teaching and principles. We do this because Christ is Head of the church.

Christ is Head of the church in the sense that He is the One “who stands over it” in the sense of being the basis of its existence, the source of its life, and the authoritative Ruler over it.

One clear example of how this works out practically is in the area of corrective church discipline. Matthew 18:15-20 unambiguously outlines normal steps for dealing with sin in the church. Since Christ is Lord of the church, true churches understand that they do not have the option to ignore these instructions. That is likewise true of the more urgent and immediate command to “purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13; read the whole chapter) when a public, scandalous sin is being committed by a church member.

If a church sees itself as a Christocracy, it will obey the Lord Jesus in this area, even when it is painful and unpopular to do so.

Mission

How the church goes about making disciples is also governed by the Headship of Christ. Our starting point is with the exalted position of our crucified, risen Savior. Jesus Himself prefaces His great commission with this reminder: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Only after asserting His universal lordship does He issue the command to His followers, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 18:18-20).

Churches own the mission to evangelize the nations. We preach Christ both personally and publicly, formally and informally; in pulpits as well as coffee shops; on the job site as well as the playground. There is no place nor any person who is outside the scope of our concern. Why? Because as Head of the church our Lord has “all authority.” His authority extends everywhere.

As Paul puts it in Ephesians 1:22, God“put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” Jesus is not only Head over the church but also, over “all things.” All principalities, powers, governments, institutions, and individuals are subservient to our sovereign, risen Lord. God made certain of that by raising Jesus from the dead and giving Him, in the capacity of our risen Mediator, to the church.

So our evangelism, while full of compassionate pleading with people to be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, is never to be carried out as if our Lord is dependent on human power for disciples to be added to His family. He is Lord of lords and King of kings and we, His ambassadors, go out in His Name, calling all people to come to Jesus Christ and be saved (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

Our evangelism is never to be carried out as if our Lord is dependent on human power for disciples to be added to His family.

The early church had this understand of Jesus as King and the church as a Christocracy as they carried out their mission. We know this by the response of their opponents to their efforts. In Thessalonica, the response to the preaching of Paul and Silas was so profound that hostile Jews dragged some of the new converts before city officials. There they charged them not with becoming Christians, but with proclaiming the kingship of Jesus. “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,…and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:6-7).

Could it be that one reason so many churches seem to be making so little difference in the world today is because we have lost sight of the kingship of Christ? He is Lord. He is Head of the church. God has raised Him from the dead and made Him head over all things for the church. We carry out our marching orders to make disciples because all authority belongs to Him and we are His ambassadors.

Pastors and elders must teach their congregations to recognize every true church is a Christocracy. We do what we do in obedience to our Lord. We conduct our affairs and carry out His mission in the Name of our King Jesus. Perhaps, as the Lord grants us grace and courage to live this way, we will, like the early church before us, have reason to be charged with turning our world upside down.

[1] Heinrich Schlier, “Κεφαλή, Ἀνακεφαλαιόομαι,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 679.

(The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) convenes in Indianapolis June 11-12, 2024. The most significant vote that will be taken will be to ratify the “Law Amendment” into the constitution of the SBC. That amendment, which was passed last year by a super-majority, must be ratified again this year with two-thirds of the messengers voting for it. If it passes again Article 3, Paragraph 1 will be amended to read, that a church will be in “friendly cooperation with the Convention” only if it “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” This article shows why biblical fidelity requires Southern Baptists to adopt this amendment. For a fuller discussion of the issues involved, a debate that Dwight McKissic and I had on women preachers can be found here.)

A godly woman cannot pastor a church of Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ forbids it. The debates surrounding this issue—including the recent Southern Baptist debate over the Law Amendment—really do turn on this simple reality. The Lord of the church has decided who He will have serve as pastors in local churches. He has expressed His will in simple, clear terms & those who have no desire to obfuscate His meaning readily acknowledge this.

Others, guided more by the feminist zeitgeist than the plain teaching of Scripture, sometimes suggest that the issue is really about the value of women. Unless a church is willing to have women pastors then, the reasoning goes, they are oppressing women. That argument is specious.

God created both men and women in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). Both men and women, therefore, are worthy of dignity, respect and honor. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith says exactly this. 2LC: 4.2: “He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, … being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness…” (4.2). Likewise, the Baptist Faith and Message states,  “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation” (Article 3).

To submit to Scripture’s requirement that only qualified men may be pastors does not deny the valuable services in God’s kingdom that women can and have performed. In the Old Testament, as the late Roger Nicole wrote, “Miriam the prophetess, sister of Moses, wrote a song recorded in Scripture (Exodus 15:21). She was followed by Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles. 34:22), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3),…all of whom also were called prophetesses” (Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, No. 2; Spring 2006, p. 5).

Similarly, in the New Testament we read of Anna, “a prophetess” (Luke 2:36) and Philip’s 4 daughters “who prophesied” (Acts 21:9). Add to them Mary, Martha, Euodia, Synteche, Phoebe, Priscilla, Tryphena Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother, Junia, and others, and you immediately that women played important roles in the early church. This pattern has continued throughout history. Perpetua, Felicitas, Anthusa, the mother of John Chrysostom, and Monica, the relentless, praying mother of Augustine, are all representative of mighty women of God who served Christ well throughout history. It is no wonder that the fourth century pagan, Libanius said, “What women these Christians have!”

Christ has not been unclear about who may serve as a pastor in any church that bears His Name.

As the father of five godly daughters (and one godly daughter-in-law) and husband of a godly wife, I have a front row seat to the important roles that women have been assigned in the kingdom of God. All these women are boldly devout, theologically astute, wonderfully gifted, and joyfully committed to serving Christ in their local church. Because they are strong, spiritually mature, and biblically grounded, none of them has ever aspired to be a pastor or ever felt in any way slighted because that job is not open to them. They delight in being women of God and celebrate the differences between themselves and their brothers in the Lord.

Christ has not been unclear about who may serve as a pastor in any church that bears His Name. He cares deeply about how His churches are organized and operate. We see this in the language that the Apostle Paul uses to instruct Timothy about giving leadership in the church at Ephesus. He writes, “I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15). God cares about how His people conduct themselves in His house. In other words, His house—His rules.

And God has made it a rule that only qualified men can serve as pastors in His church. This is abundantly evident from the plain teaching of the New Testament both in the examples we have (no church was led by women pastors) and in the qualifications prescribed for pastors—“he must be…the husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, a “one woman man;” emphasis added), 1 Timothy 3:2. Additionally, the Apostle Paul addresses the question directly in 1 Timothy 2:9-14.

Verses 11-12 are simple and clear: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. This prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men comes amid Paul’s instructions about how believers are to conduct themselves “in every place” (v. 8), which is a reference either to the house churches in Ephesus or quite possibly to all the churches where Paul taught. With the modern rise of feminist hermeneutics this passage has been increasingly subjected to critique and reinterpretation in modern times. However, prior to this, there has been a remarkable consensus of its understanding across all of church history.

Paul identifies two positive activities that he does not permit women to engage in with respect to men—teaching and exercising authority. Some see this as one activity—that of teaching men with authority, believing that such an interpretation allows for women to teach men in the church as long as they don’t do it in an authoritative or “an elder-like way.” Yet, the word for “teach” (διδάσκειν) is normally used in the New Testament to denote the accurate teaching of the gospel. Douglas Moo says that it denotes “the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers.”[1] In the pastoral epistles, “teaching” always refers to “authoritative doctrinal instruction,”[2] as seen, for instance in 1 Timothy 4:11, “Command and teach these things.”

The second activity that this passage forbids to women is “exercising authority” over men in the church. The word Paul uses (αὐθεντεῖν) has been the subject of much research over the last forty years. Egalitarian scholars have tried to demonstrate that etymologically it has an ingressive or even pejorative connotation, so that it should be understood as “to assume authority” or “to lord it over.” Since this word is used only here in the New Testament and rarely elsewhere, etymological studies are tenuous at best. What is far more helpful is to note the way Paul uses it in the context.

Consider the rationale on which he bases his apostolic prohibition in vv. 13-14. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” He does NOT ground this prohibition in the cult of Artemis or anything else that might be unique to the cultural setting of Ephesus where Timothy was. Rather, he says that the reason that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the church is because of what happened at creation and what happened at the fall.

Just as there was order between men and women at the beginning—by God’s design—so there is to be order in the church, again, by God’s design.

Paul appeals to the divinely created order that God established in the beginning. Adam was created as Eve’s head by God’s design. When Eve was deceived by the devil it was because God’s created order was overturned. She took to herself a responsibility she did not have, and Adam abdicated a responsibility that he did have by God’s design.

Just as there was order between men and women at the beginning—by God’s design—so there is to be order in the church, again, by God’s design. We have seen the devastating consequences of forsaking that order in the Garden. We should not be surprised by more grievous consequences when His order is forsaken in the church. If anyone would like real time examples of the latter simply consider the last century of the Unite Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church in the USA. They did not become LGBTQIA+ celebrants overnight. Rather, their steady decline began with a rejection of God’s rules for His house.

Once God’s Word is rejected in the ordering God’s church, God’s judgment falls on God’s people. Those who love Christ and fear God should never stand idly by and let such perversion of the Word of God take place without a fight.

[1] Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 241).

[2] Ibid.