Men and Women in the Church Part 3a, 3b, 3c, & 3d
August 30; Sept 6, Sep 13; Sep 27 2026
Theme: The New Testament is culturally revolutionary in its elevation of women while remaining theologically traditional in preserving God’s creational pattern of male leadership.
Intro:
Over the first two parts of this series, we have established the biblical foundation for understanding men and women in the church.
In Part 1, we went back to the beginning—to creation itself. Genesis 1–3 established the foundational principle: men and women are equal in dignity and worth as image-bearers of God, yet distinct by God’s design and calling. Adam was given covenantal headship, and Eve was created as a corresponding helper. The Fall did not create these distinctions; it distorted them.
In Part 2, we traced that creational pattern through the Old Testament. Again and again, we saw men exercising covenantal leadership while women demonstrated remarkable faithfulness, exercised substantial influence, and helped men fulfill their God-given callings. We also saw the devastating effects of sin: male passivity, domination, and abuse, alongside female manipulation and usurpation. Yet even in the midst of a fallen world, Scripture consistently honors the covenantal importance of women, especially in the callings of motherhood and the household.
So we have seen both principle and pattern:
Creation establishes the principle; the Old Testament reinforces it by pattern.
Now, in Part 3, we come to the New Testament—and ultimately, to Christ and His Church.
And here we must ask the central question:
Does Christ overturn God’s creational design, or does He redeem and restore it—men exercising covenantal headship and women serving as corresponding helpers?
This question matters because the New Testament presents something remarkable.
Jesus Christ radically elevates the dignity, status, and ministry of women. He welcomes women as disciples, honors their faith, entrusts them with significant testimony, and demonstrates that their value and usefulness in the kingdom of God cannot be reduced to the cultural expectations of the ancient world.
And yet, at the same time, Christ and His apostles continue to recognize the creational pattern of male covenantal leadership. The New Testament does not treat redemption as a reversal of creation. Rather, redemption restores what sin corrupted and brings God’s creational purposes into clearer focus within the people of God.
In other words, the gospel does not erase God’s design; it redeems it.
So as we enter Part 3, we are not asking whether women matter in the kingdom of God.
The New Testament has already answered that question with a resounding yes.
The question is this:
How does Christ’s redemption restore men and women to their God-given callings—and what does that mean for life and ministry in His Church?
To answer this question, I will highlight in my sermon series in Part 3 two patterns we see in the life of Jesus and the leadership of the early church:
1. Culturally, Jesus was a revolutionary!
2. Theologically, Jesus was a traditionalist, upholding God’s creational order!
Thesis: The New Testament is culturally revolutionary in its elevation of women while remaining theologically traditional in preserving God’s creational pattern of male leadership.
(Men and Women Part 3a)
I. Culturally Revolutionary: Jesus Challenges Distorted Cultural Traditions and Honors Women
When I say that Jesus was a revolutionary, I don’t mean that He was a political or social revolutionary.
A political revolution involves throwing off the restraints and control of an existing government and replacing it with another form of government. The American Revolution and the French Revolution are examples of political revolutions.
A Jesus Challenges Distorted Cultural Traditions
But Jesus was revolutionary in another sense: Jesus challenged cultural assumptions embedded in man-made traditions!
He challenged cultural assumptions embedded in man-made traditions when those traditions were in conflict with Scripture and distorted God’s Word—not by overthrowing governments and society, but by revealing the truth of God. We see this repeatedly in Matthew 5 in the pattern: ‘You have heard that it was said…but I say to you.” Jesus uses this pattern many times:
- Matthew 5:21–22 — “You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…”
- Matthew 5:27–28 — “You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…”
- Matthew 5:31–32 — “It was also said… But I say to you…”
- Matthew 5:33–34 — “Again, you have heard that it was said… But I say to you…”
- Matthew 5:38–39 — “You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…”
- Matthew 5:43–44 — “You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…”
Jesus was confronting distorted understandings of God’s Word, calling His hearers back to its true meaning.
We see the same principle in Mark 7, where Jesus rebukes those who had elevated human, manmade tradition above God’s command: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
The issue was therefore the authority of God’s Word versus the authority of human tradition. Jesus did not come merely to offer another human interpretation. Nor was He placing His opinion above Scripture. As the eternal Son sent by the Father, Jesus spoke with divine authority, yet in perfect submission to the Father’s will. His teachings do not compete with Scripture; He reveals, fulfills, and authoritatively interprets and applies its true meaning.
The clearest of all places we see this is in John’s Gospel, where Jesus explicitly says that His teaching comes from the Father. Jesus was not merely offering another human interpretation, nor was He placing His opinion above Scripture. As the eternal Son sent by the Father, He spoke with divine authority while perfectly submitting to the Father’s will. As Jesus says in John 7:16, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.”
Application: We have today many cultural assumptions in the church similar to the early church. Some of those cultural assumptions in the church culture today are harmless and neutral, yet some are not! We see this danger throughout church history whenever human or ecclesiastical traditions are elevated to the level of divine command. (If you like eating Fish on Friday please continue. However, eating Fish on Friday is not a divine command.) The issue is not whether the church has traditions. The issue is whether those traditions are allowed to bind the conscience where God has not spoken.
Jesus truly was a cultural revolutionary who challenged and overturned cultural assumptions of His day but only if they conflicted with the Word of God. This is our challenge too. We are to confront and overturn cultural assumptions that conflict and contradict the clear teachings of the Word of God in our generation.
B Challenging Cultural Assumption Regarding Women
But there is another—and especially important—example of Jesus challenging the cultural assumptions of His day: Jesus honored women. In Jesus’ day, women were often marginalized, socially disregarded, and denied opportunities that were commonly available to men. Yet Jesus consistently treated women with remarkable dignity, engaging them personally, teaching them truth, receiving their faith, and entrusting them with significant ministry.
Examples of marginalization are these:
Women were generally excluded from formal religious discipleship. Formal rabbinic discipleship was predominantly male, making Jesus’ willingness to teach women particularly striking.
- Women’s testimony was often socially undervalued. This is especially relevant to the resurrection narratives. Jesus deliberately chose women to be among the first witnesses and proclaimers of the resurrection. The fact that women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb and resurrection is significant because the testimony of women was not generally accorded the same social weight as that of men. (The point is not that women were appointed to an authoritative office over men. The point is that Jesus entrusted women with the extraordinary privilege of being witnesses to His resurrection.)
- Marriage and divorce could leave women particularly vulnerable. A husband’s ability to divorce his wife could create serious economic and social consequences for her. Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Mark 10:2–12 is therefore significant because He confronts the casual treatment of marriage and protects the vulnerable party, which were so often women.
What we see is in the life of Jesus and ministry is that he overturns the cultural assumptions about women in His day by demonstrating the value, dignity, and spiritual worth of women whom society often marginalized, consistent with the same biblical principles we have already seen in the Old Testament.
And we additionally see this especially in the way Jesus treated women in Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–42; John 4:7–42.
- Women are welcomed as disciples. — Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–42
- Women receive theological instruction. — Luke 10:38–42; John 4:7–26
- Christ intentionally ministers to women. — Luke 7:11–17; 8:43–48; John 4:7–26
- Women actively minister to Christ and His mission. — Luke 8:1–3; John 12:1–8
- Women possess equal spiritual dignity and covenant standing. — Jesus even publicly identifies a woman as a “daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16). This is significant because Jesus is not treating her as spiritually peripheral to God’s covenant people. He identifies her with the covenant family of Abraham and insists that she possesses the dignity and standing that belongs to one of God’s people.
Concluding Truth:
Christ radically elevates the dignity, spiritual worth, and covenant standing of women without abolishing God’s creational distinctions between men and women.
Jesus does not elevate women by erasing God’s design. He elevates women within God’s design.
He demonstrates that equal dignity does not require identical roles, that spiritual equality does not require the abolition of creational distinctions, and that honoring women does not require rejecting male headship.
In other words, Jesus does not overturn the sinful cultural assumption by making women the same as men. He restores women to the purposes for which God created them.
And that is what makes Jesus’ treatment of women so culturally revolutionary.
(Men and Women Part 3b)
II. Culturally Revolutionary: Women Are Gospel Co-Laborers
Not only do we see Jesus as culturally revolutionary in the way He elevated the dignity of women, but we also see Him celebrating women as indispensable co-laborers in Christ’s kingdom—while still preserving the creational pattern of male covenantal leadership.
And that brings us to Part 3b.
The question before us is not whether women are valuable, gifted, intelligent, necessary, or called to meaningful ministry. The New Testament answers those questions with a resounding yes. The question is: How does the New Testament affirm women while preserving male leadership?
In other words, men and women are both indispensable to the ministry of Christ’s kingdom. Yet being equally indispensable does not mean that men and women are called to the same roles. Qualified men and qualified women have different callings and responsibilities in ministry—roles that do not compete with one another but complement one another.
As we continue, we will see that the New Testament remains both culturally revolutionary and theologically traditional—honoring, elevating, and empowering women for gospel ministry while continuing to preserve God’s good creational design for male leadership in the church.
Examples of women being indispensable to the ministry of Christ’s kingdom are Acts 1:14; 2:17–18; Romans 16:1–16.
In Roman 16:1-6 we read of Paul giving KUDOS and offering praise, credit, and recognition to both men and women:
· Phoebe is commended as a faithful servant of the church and a benefactor to many, including Paul (vv. 1–2).
· Priscilla and Aquila are praised as Paul’s fellow workers in Christ who risked their lives for him and hosted a church in their home (vv. 3–5).
· Paul greets numerous other believers—both men and women—recognizing their faithfulness, hard work, suffering, hospitality, and labor for the gospel.
· Several women, including Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis, are specifically commended for their hard work in the Lord (vv. 6, 12).
· Paul describes many believers as fellow workers, beloved brothers and sisters, and faithful servants, demonstrating the deeply relational and cooperative nature of gospel ministry.
· The passage concludes with an instruction for believers to greet one another warmly as members of the family of Christ (v. 16).
Romans 16:1–16 demonstrates that women were significant and indispensable co-laborers in the ministry of the early church— viz., serving, laboring, supporting gospel workers, opening their homes in hospitality, and faithfully participating alongside men in the work of Christ’s kingdom.
Let me elaborate on two well-known women in the Apostolic Church: Phoebe and Priscilla. First is Phoebe. In vv 1-2 Phoebe is called both a “patron” and “servant” of the church in general and a benefactor or patron to many, including the Apostle Paul. Let me first talk about her role as patron or benefactor. Benefactor or patron (ESV) in the Greek is προστάτις. Προστάτις literally means “Female benefactor.” The BDAG (one of the most important
lexicons for scholars who study the NT Greek and Early Christian Greek
literature) translates it as “a woman in a supportive role.” In other words, it is a helper who complements. This is exact same principle we see taught in Gen 2:18 where the woman was created as a HELP MEET to her husband Adam. This principle in Genesis is reinforced here in the pattern of Phoebe and her role in the early church in general and with Paul and others. She is not a leader in the early church along with Paul and other qualified men in the church. She is
in a supportive role. Phoebe is also called a “servant.” The Greek word is διάκονος. Διάκονος simply means “servant.” It’s where we get our English word “deacon.” This Greek term originally meant a person who runs an errand (courier) or waits tables (waiter). In context, it is very possible that Phoebe served as the letter-carrier who delivered Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. While the text does not explicitly state this, it is a reasonable and widely held possibility. If Phoebe was the letter-carrier, this does not necessarily mean that she publicly read or authoritatively explained the letter. Sometimes letter-carriers delivered letters and also had the privilege of reading them, but not always. Often, a letter-carrier’s job was simply to ensure that the letter reached its intended destination—much like your mailman’s job is to get
your mail to you. Frank [He is an elder who is a retired engineer for the USPS]
what is that that phrase— “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds?” That was most likely Phebe’s role
here.
Some may ask if Phoebe was more than a letter-carrier. Some have argued that Phoebe was also an officer of the church, that she held the office of deacon as an official representative of the church. Now later on in Part 4— I will get to Paul’s teachings and precepts regarding Elders and Deacons in the church as official representatives of the church. However, you cannot
argue from this text that Phoebe was an official deacon of the church. Why? It’s
because you would be saying too much, going beyond the text. This text does not
teach that Phoebe was an officer of the church. Paul is POSSIBLY giving Phoebe KUDOS
for getting his letter to the Church of Rome. You CANNOT go beyond that. In short, this text neither proves that Phoebe is a Deacon; nor does this text disprove that Phoebe is a Deacon.
Because of this, it’s not wise to translate this as Deacon, but as servant or letter-carrier.
Second is Priscilla in vv. 3–5. As I noted, Paul praises her, along with her husband Aquila, as his fellow worker in Christ. Together, they risked their lives for him and hosted a church in their home (Romans 16:3–5).
- Who was Priscilla?
Priscilla, like Phoebe, was also a prominent woman in the early church. She too was indispensable to the ministry of Christ’s kingdom. Priscilla, along with her husband, risked their lives for Paul. They literally put their necks on the line for him. Paul thanks them personally, along with the entire “churches of the Gentiles.” Both Priscilla and her husband served Christ and His church with distinction. Their ministry was indispensable because they were co-laborers in the work of Christ’s kingdom, serving together as both husband and wife.
- Why is Priscilla sometimes named first before her husband?
Priscilla is named before Aquila here in Romans 16:3: “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.” She is also named first in Acts 18:18 and 2 Timothy 4:19, while Aquila is named first in Acts 18:2 and Acts 18:26. It is not because she was more important. It’s definitely not because she was the head of her husband (that would contradict God’s design of male headship).
Why is she named first? Let me give you a very complicated and erudite answer: I don’t know why? The reason I don’t know is because Scripture never explicitly tells us why her name sometimes comes first. Several explanations have been proposed. It may be because she is better known to everyone in the church rather than her husband (just like Dolly Parton was better known that Carl her husband or like Taylor Swift and Scott Borchetta. You ask, “Who is Scott Borchetta?” Exactly!!) And the fact is the actual order actually varies significantly in Scripture: e.g., Aquila first: Acts 18:2; Acts 18:26; Priscilla first: Acts 18:18; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19. So the safest conclusion is that the order of their names should not be used by itself to establish either egalitarianism or male headship. Therefore, we should not build a doctrine of authority upon the order in which their names appear. Priscilla did not exercise authority over her husband.
- Does Priscilla exercise authority over other men not her husband?
For instance, Priscilla and Aquila both were teaching Apollos as recorded in the book of Acts.
In Acts 18:24–26, Apollos was an eloquent and knowledgeable man who was teaching about Jesus, but his understanding was incomplete. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, “they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
Notice that both Priscilla and Aquila were involved in helping instruct Apollos. This demonstrates that Priscilla was knowledgeable about the faith and actively participated with her husband in helping Apollos understand the way of God more accurately.
However, we must again be careful not to make the text say more than it says.
This passage does not describe Priscilla exercising official authority over Apollos. Nor does it portray her publicly teaching or governing the assembled church. Rather, Priscilla and Aquila together took Apollos aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.
Therefore, this passage clearly demonstrates that a woman can possess theological knowledge and participate in instructing a man in an appropriate context. At the same time, Acts 18 does not establish that Priscilla held governing or pastoral authority over men in the church. Act 18 is describing a private encounter that Paul came across on his missionary journey. Acts 18 is not prescriptive. Acts 18 is description. Trying to use Acts 18 to justify female preaching and teaching is an outright twisting of Scripture whether the person knows it or not!
So, what we have in Acts 18 is simply Priscilla’s participation in instructing Apollos; this demonstrates that women are capable, knowledgeable, and valuable teachers and co-laborers in Christ’s kingdom. But the passage itself does not teach us to conclude that Priscilla exercised ecclesiastical authority over Apollos or over other men in the church.
In conclusion, these two women are exemplars of women serving and who were indispensable to the ministry of Christ’s kingdom. In short, this is what we see:
- Women pray and prophesy.
- Women serve the church.
- Women labor alongside men in gospel ministry.
Concluding doctrine: Christ both elevates women, and then he calls them to work as indispensable co-laborers. Women are indispensable participants in Christ’s kingdom work. Yet being equally indispensable does not mean that men and women are called to the same roles. Qualified men and qualified women have different callings and responsibilities in ministry—roles that do not compete with one another but complement one another.
(Men and Women Part 3C next week)
III. Theologically Traditional: Jesus Chooses Male Apostles
So far in Part 3, we have seen that the New Testament is both culturally revolutionary and theologically traditional in its understanding of men and women in the church.
In Part 3a, we saw how Jesus radically elevated the dignity and spiritual standing of women. He welcomed women as disciples, taught them, ministered to them, and honored them as witnesses to His kingdom.
In Part 3b, we saw that women are not merely recipients of ministry but indispensable co-laborers in Christ’s kingdom. The New Testament celebrates women praying, serving, witnessing, and laboring alongside men in the work of the gospel.
Yet none of this erases God’s creational design. The New Testament elevates women without eliminating the distinction between men and women or the principle of male covenantal leadership.
So the question has been:
How does the New Testament affirm women while preserving male leadership?
And now, as we come to our final two points, we will see how the New Testament answers that question most explicitly—not by diminishing the ministry of women, but by defining the distinct responsibilities God has given to men and women in His church.
These final passages bring the whole picture together: women are fully valued, fully gifted, and fully engaged in the ministry of Christ’s kingdom—while God still entrusts particular leadership responsibilities to qualified men.
1. Jesus Chose Twelve Male Apostles
We see this first in the fact that Jesus appointed all male apostles.
This is perhaps our clearest foundational example.
- Jesus welcomed women as disciples and taught them.
- Women supported His ministry.
- Women witnessed His resurrection.
- Yet when Jesus appointed the Twelve, He chose men.
- The apostles were given a unique authority to represent Christ and to lay the foundation of His church.
Texts: Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16.
Women were welcomed into the circle of discipleship; men were appointed to the unique office of apostle.
And that raises an important question:
Why men? Why not women?
If Jesus’ attitude toward women was so revolutionary, why did He stop short of including women among the inner circle of the Twelve?
Why don’t we find even one woman among the Twelve?
It wasn’t because Jesus was afraid of the culture.
Jesus had zero problem breaking social and cultural taboos when those taboos were contrary to God’s purposes.
He spoke publicly with women.
He taught women theology.
He welcomed women as disciples.
He received women as witnesses and co-laborers in His kingdom.
So if Jesus wanted to appoint women to the Twelve, culture would not have stopped Him.
The reason is theological.
Jesus held to the authority of Scripture.
Jesus would never contradict or reject the Word of God. And He tells us exactly how we should understand His relationship to the Old Testament.
Jesus says in Matthew 5:17–18:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
The “Law and the Prophets” is a comprehensive designation for the Old Testament Scriptures.
Jesus did not come to discard what God had previously revealed.
He came to fulfill it.
Not even the smallest letter or stroke of the Old Testament would simply disappear. Everything would be accomplished in Him.
So when we come to the New Testament, we should not assume that Jesus came to overturn the creational pattern revealed in Genesis and reinforced throughout the Old Testament.
If anything, Matthew 5:17–18 tells us to expect continuity.
Christ fulfills the Old Testament; He does not contradict the God who revealed it.
And what continuity do we see?
We see Christ upholding the pattern of male covenantal leadership.
The very Messiah who radically elevates the dignity and ministry of women deliberately appoints twelve men to the foundational office of apostleship.
That is not an accident.
It is not a concession to the culture.
It is not because Jesus lacked courage to challenge first-century social conventions.
It is because Jesus was perfectly consistent with the Scriptures He came to fulfill.
The Twelve represented the foundational leadership of Christ’s apostolic church.
And Jesus chose twelve men.
The Jewishness of the Twelve was tied to a particular moment in salvation history. But their maleness points back to the creational pattern of male representative leadership.
Jesus’ deliberate choice of twelve men is consistent with the pattern Scripture had established and reinforced from creation onward: male representative covenantal leadership.
But Jesus did not overturn that pattern.
He fulfilled it.
And that is precisely what we should expect from the One who said:
“I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
2. Women Were the First Witnesses of the Resurrection, but the Apostles Held the Foundational Witness
The second example is found in the resurrection itself.
Women were among the first witnesses of the risen Christ, and Jesus Himself commissioned them to carry the news to the disciples.
This is a particularly important example because it shows that the distinction between men and women is not a distinction between important ministry and unimportant ministry.
Women were given an extraordinary privilege.
They saw the risen Christ.
They were entrusted with the message of His resurrection.
And they were commanded to tell others what they had seen.
Texts: Matthew 28:1–10; John 20:11–18; Acts 1:8, 21–22.
Yet when we come to the public, foundational witness of Christ’s resurrection in the early church, the apostles occupy a unique and authoritative role.
The apostles were appointed as the foundational witnesses and authoritative proclaimers of Christ’s resurrection.
So what we see here is a distinction between the general calling of all believers to bear witness to Christ and the special apostolic office entrusted by Christ to the Twelve.
Women were genuinely—and gloriously—witnesses of the resurrection.
But the apostles were commissioned to serve as Christ’s foundational witnesses, authoritatively proclaiming what they had seen and heard and laying the foundation of the church upon the apostolic testimony.
In other words:
The general ministry of witnessing belongs to all believers, while the special apostolic office was entrusted to the Twelve.
And this brings us to an important question:
Why Twelve Jewish Men?
Why did Jesus choose twelve men to constitute the apostolic office?
The answer is not simply, “Because that was the culture of the day.”
Jesus repeatedly challenged sinful cultural assumptions about women.
So culture alone cannot explain His choice.
Rather, the number twelve points us back to Israel.
The Twelve apostles correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel, signifying that Jesus was establishing the renewed covenant people of God around Himself and His apostles.
Jesus says to the Twelve in Matthew 19:28:
“You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
The symbolism is deliberate.
Jesus is not merely selecting twelve individuals to help Him with ministry.
He is establishing a foundational apostolic office corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Just as the Old Testament covenant community was represented by the twelve tribes and their heads, so the New Testament church is represented by the Twelve apostles as its foundational witnesses.
And significantly, Jesus chose twelve Jewish men for that office.
That does not mean women were excluded from the kingdom.
Quite the opposite.
Women were among Jesus’ disciples.
They received His teaching.
They supported His ministry.
They witnessed His resurrection.
They proclaimed the good news.
But the distinction of office remained.
Women were fully included in the mission of Christ; the Twelve were uniquely appointed to the foundational apostolic office.
Conclusion to Part 3C
So the pattern we see is clear:
Jesus radically elevated women without abolishing the distinction between men and women.
Women were fully welcomed, fully valued, and fully engaged in the work of Christ’s kingdom.
Yet Jesus deliberately appointed twelve men to the foundational apostolic office.
Equal dignity. Equal worth. Genuine partnership in the gospel—but not identical offices, roles, or responsibilities.
And this is the consistent pattern of the New Testament:
Culturally revolutionary in the elevation of women, yet theologically traditional in preserving God’s creational pattern of male leadership.
Truth: Jesus is culturally revolutionary in elevating women without overturning God’s creational design.
(Men and Women Part 3D)
IV. Theologically Traditional: The Apostolic Church Retains Male Leadership
Last but not least, we see that the early church—the Apostolic Church—retained male leadership throughout Acts and the Epistles. We see this first in Acts 1:15–26, where qualified men are chosen for the apostolic office. And we see it again in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and 3:1–7, where qualified men are prescribed for leadership in the ongoing church.
A. Qualified Men Chosen — Acts 1:15–26
In Acts 1, Luke records for us the earliest days of the Apostolic Church.
We read this morning that after Judas’s betrayal and death, Peter stood among approximately 120 believers and explained that Judas’s departure and replacement were in accordance with Scripture. The apostles then selected Matthias to take Judas’s place, restoring the number of apostles to twelve. The risen Christ has ascended into heaven, but He has not left His people without direction or purpose. He has commanded His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promised coming of the Holy Spirit, and He has commissioned them to be His witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
And so Luke brings us into those remarkable days between Christ’s ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Peter quotes from the Psalms and explains that the apostolic office vacated by Judas needed to be filled. The apostles therefore sought a man who had accompanied Jesus throughout His earthly ministry—from the baptism of John until Christ’s ascension—so that he could become, with them, a witness to Christ’s resurrection.
Two men were put forward: Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. After prayer, they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias. Luke then tells us that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
There is something significant happening here.
The Church is preparing for its mission, and at the center of that preparation is the apostolic office. Jesus had chosen twelve apostles, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, and even after Judas’s tragic apostasy, the number twelve was restored.
The point is not merely that the apostles needed to fill an empty position. Luke is showing us that Christ is establishing His Church according to His own authority and according to the Scriptures. This is important because Christ is Lord of His Church. The Church does not invent its own offices or determine its own authority. Christ establishes His Church according to His Word, and the Apostles are acting under that divine authority. This is consistent with the Presbyterian principle that the jurisdiction of the Church is limited by Christ and defined by His Word. The Apostles (who are the head officers of the Apostolic Age of the Church) are choosing only men to replace Judas because Christ has commanded them to. They are now only following Christ’s example of choosing only male leadership in the early church but obeying Christ’s command because Christ has divinely appointed qualified men to serve as leaders in the church.
And notice something else that is easy to overlook: women are present throughout this account.
Luke tells us that the apostles were gathered together “with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” The women are not on the margins of the community. They are there with the disciples, waiting together, praying together, and participating in the life of this newly forming covenant community.
That becomes especially important when we move into Acts 2.
The Spirit will be poured out not merely upon the apostles, and not merely upon the men, but upon the gathered people of God—men and women alike. Sons and daughters will prophesy. Male and female servants will receive the Spirit. [Extemporize on the pattern from Numbers 11, Joel 2, and Acts 2]
So already in Acts 1 we see two truths held together.
First, Christ establishes particular offices of leadership within His Church. The apostles are a distinct group, personally commissioned by Christ and appointed as authoritative witnesses to His resurrection.
Second, the grace and mission of Christ are not restricted to those who hold those offices. Women are fully present among Christ’s disciples, fully included in the gathered people of God, and fully involved in the Spirit-empowered mission that is about to unfold.
That distinction will become increasingly important as we move through Acts.
The New Testament does not present women as spectators in the kingdom of God. Quite the opposite. They are disciples, witnesses, servants, prayer partners, prophets, patrons, co-laborers, and fellow workers in the gospel.
But neither does the New Testament erase every distinction of calling or office between men and women.
And that is precisely the pattern we want to trace in Part 3:
The coming of Christ radically elevates women and incorporates them fully into the life and mission of His Church, while at the same time preserving the creational pattern of male covenantal leadership.
The gospel is revolutionary in the way it restores women to their full dignity and calls them into the full privileges and responsibilities of discipleship.
But it is not revolutionary in the sense of overturning God’s design for the church.
What does the early New Testament church reveal about leadership?
From the beginning, the early church recognized and appointed qualified men to the apostolic office.
Application:
Beloved, Acts 1 does not give us a Church divided between important people and unimportant people. It gives us a Church in which Christ assigns different callings to His people, while giving every believer a vital place in His kingdom. Men and women are equal in dignity, equal in their need of grace, equal in their union with Christ, and equally called to serve His kingdom. Yet Christ has not given every Christian the same calling or the same office.
So let us not compete over distinctions that Christ Himself has established. Let us rejoice in them. Let qualified men embrace the responsibility Christ has entrusted to them. Let women embrace the many and meaningful ways Christ has gifted them to serve. And let the whole Church labor together—not in competition, but in joyful submission to Christ and for the advancement of His gospel.
But not only do we see qualified men chosen at the beginning; we also see qualified men prescribed for leadership in the ongoing church.
And this takes us from Acts 1 to 1 Timothy 2 and 3.
B. Qualified Men Prescribed — 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–7
The Apostle Paul does not merely describe what happened in the earliest days of the church. He also gives Timothy instructions concerning how the church is to conduct itself. (That includes the 21 century church today.) In Part 4 of Men and Women in the Church will next week go from studying biblical Patterns that reinforces Principles, to Paul’s Prescriptions that enforce both principles and patterns of the Old and New Testaments. That will be about 4 sermons then we will be done with our study of male leadership in the church. But let me give you a taste of Paul’s prescriptions ( Paul’s authoritative commands) for the Church.
So, today I am not going to exegete these passages in detail. That is the work of Part 4. But I want you to see the trajectory before we leave Part 3. In 1 Timothy 2–3, Paul moves from the theological rationale for ordered relationships between men and women to the qualifications for those who exercise oversight in the church.
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul addresses the roles of men and women in the gathered church. Then, in chapter 3, he gives the qualifications for those who would serve as overseers.
The question is no longer simply: “Who was chosen at the beginning
The question becomes: “Who is qualified to lead the church?”
And as we read these passages, we see that the apostolic instruction continues to preserve the creational pattern of male leadership.
The same Apostolic Church was theologically traditional in the way it preserved the distinction between men and women in church leadership.
So notice the pattern:
Acts 1: Qualified men chosen.
1 Timothy 2–3: Qualified men prescribed.
And so, from the beginning of the Apostolic Church, the pattern remains consistent.
The New Testament does not erase the distinction established at creation.
It does not diminish the dignity, worth, spiritual significance, or gospel usefulness of women.
Rather, it brings the creational pattern into the life of the redeemed church.
Truth
The Apostolic Church continues the creational pattern of male covenant leadership.
And that brings us to the conclusion of our study:
The New Testament is culturally revolutionary in its elevation of women, while remaining theologically traditional in preserving God’s creational pattern of male leadership.
Concluding Application and Charge:
- Christ is Lord of His Church. He determines who belongs to His kingdom, how His people are gifted, and how His Church is ordered.
- Women are not second-class disciples. They are not spectators. They are not spiritually inferior. They are beloved daughters of God, fellow heirs of grace, gifted servants of Christ, and indispensable members of His Church.
- And men, as Starkdale moves toward a more biblical pattern of male leadership, you must step up—not to seize power, but to embrace responsibility. Not to demand to be served, but to serve. Not to dominate, but to sacrifice. Not to avoid responsibility through passivity, but to lead with humility, courage, holiness, and love.
- And women, do not hear this teaching as a restriction on your usefulness. The New Testament gives you an expansive calling to disciple, teach, pray, serve, evangelize, encourage, nurture, labor, and build up the body of Christ.
- Beloved this is not men versus women, but men and women together serving Christ according to His Word. So let us all work together serving Christ according to His Word for the ultimate glory of God the Father in Jesus Christ!!
AMEN!!!
