If the Bible gives a command and we violate that command, we sin. Pointing that out is not legalism, nor is it a secondary theological issue. Making a passage debated and so not good for theology is ludicrous. Even John 3:16 is debated. When the Bible commands something, it is to be obeyed. Lack of or explaining away obedience is sin. Thus, the issue of women pastors is not a secondary theological issue, but an obedience issue. Here is why:

Paul gives an explicit command

Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 is explicit. The “right vs left” view of this command has some wiggle room, but not as much as the egalitarian side would like. Grammatically on the extreme right women cannot teach, and women cannot lead in ministry. Contextually I do not see the text saying that, but grammatically it is a sound and safest application to avoid breaking this command. On the “left side,” the teaching or leadership over men is juxtaposed to chapter 3’s description of elder/pastor/bishop. Meaning women cannot hold the office of pastor. This is the position I hold to. We see women active in Christ’s church, but the office of pastor is one place that is prohibited. What cannot be taken out of the passage is women can be pastors.

The restriction is based on creation, not culture

The counter is that Paul’s restriction was specific to the church of that time and thus culturally bound. The paragraph and reason does not fit that argument. Paul, like Jesus on marriage, goes to created order as the standard. This transcends all culture. Grammatically the created order in verse 13 is the reason for the prohibition in verse 12. The culture argument does not hold up, the restriction stands. It is true that cultural or dispensational differences influence some passages, but not all passages. Culture is used to leverage away the prohibition against women pastors, but Paul’s basis is airtight, negating the cultural argument.

No refutation of the prohibition

No where does Paul refute this command, that is to pull it back. Some refer to Galatians “no distinction between male or female” argument,  that’s an earlier writing. It is also a misapplication of the distinction argument. In salvation there is no distinction. In how life operates there is. The gospel does not remove distinctions of male or female. But a Jewish free male is no closer to heaven than a gentile female slave. Polar opposites in a Jewish context of that day, and the point Paul was actually making. Paul ordered Timothy to restore the Ephesian church. In 2 Timothy, Paul’s last letter, it was to reliable men Timothy was to pass things one to. If egalitarianism was the right move Paul would’ve addressed it in first Timothy. He did not.

Only male pastors is an obedience issue 

The Bible only has to command something once for it to be true. Only male pastors is an obedience to Scripture issue, not an equality or ability one. The only way around the restriction on women is to obliterate what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12. One can get more strict in the restriction, but there is no room for the egalitarian argument to be lenient. We see women serving  in the New Testament. We do not see them as pastors in the New Testament. Any distortion on that is sin, it is not a secondary issue.

What’s the point?

I asked egalitarians a few times to blank stares this question: What does obedience or disobedience to this passage look like? After the “what do you mean” question, I rephrase: culturally bound passages, like much of the Old Testament, still teach. What is the principle behind the passage? 2 Timothy 2:12-13 is the problem passage for the women can be pastors argument because grammatically and culturally it is clear what the text is saying. People just don’t want to accept it. That’s an obedience issue. Do we trust God or do we not trust God? This command does not make women lesser Christians or people. There is one office whereby we see prohibition out of all the ministry possibilities that exist. Perhaps we should let God be God and accept Him at His word.