The Order of The Players: MAN II
Order of the Cosmic Kingdom, part (e)
EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES
Transcript
Church Order
Introduction
This is second part looking at the order and economy of man.
Hello, I’m Stephen Buckley and we’re in a series where you will build a biblical worldview through the story of the bible.
We’ve taken time between Genesis 2 and 3 to tighten up our understanding of the order of God’s cosmic kingdom: God’s Order, the order of the field (the universe), the order of the players (those who dwell within the field of play), and last time as we turned to mankind, we began to major on home order and societal order, and today we turn to order within the church.
And as we do that, we are viewing the discussion within the wider context of the bible as a whole. We refreshed our frame of the original order of man in the garden; we briefly surmised the order of man throughout the OT, before turning to the instructions given to us by the apostles.
And so far, we have witnessed the continuity of male-leadership from the first chapters of Genesis to the NT. And as we continue the New Covenant Economy of man, we will examine the so-called controversial passages on church order, and lastly we’ll touch on the order and economy of man within the future kingdom.
Hopefully then, we will have a much better grasp of the universal principles God has delivered to man: proper Christian ordering of activities as players within his field, and under his throne.
By the end of today you should appreciate the gravity and urgency of why this subject is of such significance, especially upon the hour the church finds herself. The order of the bride of Christ is no small matter, in the same way the preparation of your bride, or you as the bride, was no small matter.
Nature of the church
The NT informs us about church order. The economy of the Trinity which is reflected in the creation of mankind and specifically in marriage is also reflected in the economy of the church.
Let’s be clear on what we mean by church.
The church is the community of true believers for all time. If as Paul said, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), then he died for all those of faith in the OT also, therefore the church is both Jew and gentile of true faith for all time.
As the Jewish believers were kicked out of the synagogues for faith in Yeshua, Jesus, they required instruction of how to meet and function orderly. For the early church they did not view themselves as starting a new religion, it’s that they recognised Jesus as Messiah, what he accomplished and will accomplish.
The Greek word in the NT translated as church is Ekklesia. Why did the NT authors use this word? The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) they were familiar with, translated the Hebrew for “assembly” or “congregation” of Israel as ekklesia. 69 times ekklesia or a variant of the word is used to translate the ‘congregation’ of God’s people, and 37 times it translates it as synagogue (synagoge), which refers more to the place of meeting. Which is why Stephen in his speech uses the word ekklesia for the congregation of Israel in the wilderness.
“This is the one who was in the congregation [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.”
When quoting Ps 22:22, the author of Hebrews translates the Hebrew for assembly or congregation of believers as ekklesia. “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation [ekklesia] I will sing your praise.” (Heb 2:12)
So, not only do they refer to the followers of Jesus who congregate, as the ekklesia, but they follow the established use of ekklesia when referring to the OT people to God, namely the people of Israel.
While there is a fresh, corporate, pouring out of the Spirit, and revelation of Christ’s atonement and the timing of the kingdom, and the mystery of gentile inclusion, the church is not a new thing as such in the NT. The church, or ekklesia, is not defined by the building or location, but the corporate body of true believers, specifically those who have faith in Jesus the Jewish Messiah.
We may use the word church in different ways as the NT does. “I go to a home church” or “I go to King’s church, in such a town”, meaning a local church community, which is part of the global church, or to be precise, because it includes those who await resurrection in heaven, the universal or cosmic church. The NT also calls the community of believers of a city or region a church. And there are various metaphors for the church – such as, the bride of Christ, branches on a vine, living stones, crops to be harvested, the body of Christ.
In fact, there are two distinct body metaphors. In 1 Cor 12 the church is viewed as a whole body including the head, whereas the metaphor employed in Ephesians and Colossians, Jesus “is the head of the body, the church.” (Colossians 1:18) I will go back and forth between the two as Paul did.
But the point is that the parts of the body must function correctly. At present the church body is currently out shape. We have body parts that want to be other body parts, we have some members self-harming the body, there are parts that behave as though they’ve been given a local anaesthetic… She’s not good.
We must be in shape to protect from wolves entering, to stamp out abuse, to demonstrate and model the gospel, to be effective in stewardship of the earth, and because Jesus deserves a beautiful bride.
The Good news is that Jesus said: “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18)
Jesus called men to lead
Let’s start with Jesus and the pattern he established.
Jesus’ ministry continued the principles of the economy of man from the OT, which then flowed into the NT church setting.
As a child Jesus would submit to his earthly parents, who were given the responsibility to name him. Yes, the name was given from God, but it was for them to declare his name in an expression of authority over him until he was grown. Is it ok for the Son of God to become lower than the angels, and come under his own creation in the form of his biological mother and foster father, but not ok for a wife to submit to her husband? Jesus grew up in a home where his mother (favoured by God) would submit to his father.
Jesus does not pander to women rights or play a diplomacy card to appease them.
At the wedding at Cana, when the mother of Jesus speaks to him, almost to nudge him to do a miracle, his response is: “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4) I understand his response is a soft correction in the form of a Hebrew idiom for ‘Don’t interfere.’ His use of “woman” (which was respectful in the Jewish culture) rather than “mother” suggests he is no longer under her covering, gently reminding her of her place. Mary’s response is perfect: “His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”” (John 2:5) Don’t be offended, do whatever he tells you.
In the district of Tyre and Sidon, when the Canaanite Woman begged Jesus to help her, at first “he did not answer her a word” (Matt 15:23), secondly, he dismissed her saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (v24) And even when “she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” (v25-26) The children’s bread represents the blessings of the covenant with the people of Israel, and the dogs represent the gentiles outside of the covenant. To be clear, it is not because she is a woman but because she is a Canaanite that he says this. Now, because of the woman’s great faith, he ended up healing and delivering her daughter. But our point is that he wasn’t afraid to correct women when they strayed from proper boundaries, and even under great pressure of pleading women he would remain within the boundaries of his role and mission of the Father.
He was straight with women, and at the same time incredibly loving to women.
Kevin DeYoung says: “Out of a cultural background that minimized the dignity of women and even depersonalized them, Jesus boldly affirmed their worth and gladly benefited from their vital ministry.”
He spoke freely to women in public. He ministered to women and allowed women to minister to him. Some women helped Jesus’s ministry financially. Women were the first witnesses to the resurrection. He underlined women’s inheritance along with men in calling them “daughters of Abraham” (Luke 13:16). His instruction about lust protected women from being treated as mere objects of sexual desire. Jesus used women as illustrations in his teaching, and would on numerous occasions teach them also.
And at the same time, Jesus was consistent with male leadership.
Jesus, a man, who is the head of the church, “went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles” (Luke 6:12-13). All men. It wasn’t a rash decision. It wasn’t pressured by crowds. But prayerfully considered and submitted to the Father’s will, all night long.
Why didn't Jesus do an Alan Sugar (or Donald Trump) and pick 6 men and 6 women? Or why didn’t he pick 6 husband and wife teams?
Even Judas’ replacement was a man. The apostles were to have witnessed the resurrection as legal witnesses according to Jewish judicial system.
You cannot argue that Jesus would not have been allowed to choose women for apostles because of the culture of the day. The Pharisees along with the Herodians, in setting up their question said to Jesus, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.” (Matt 22:16). Jesus healed on the Sabbath, rebuked the Pharisees, he aggressively cleansed the temple, he ate with tax collectors, and we’ve said he wasn’t afraid to break social customs when it came to women.
Jesus corrected false interpretations and those “making void the word of God by [their] your tradition” (Mark 7:13) but he never reinterpreted, reimagined or rejected biblical teaching from the OT, and he certainly wouldn’t have been cowered into compromising biblical principles. This objection is to call in to question the integrity of Jesus.
The other thing is that when people refer to the culture of Jesus’ day, they may assume all of it was bad. There were bad aspects of the Greco-Roman culture, and the extra Jewish traditions, but the Jewish culture of the day was forged primarily by the Jewish scriptures: The good law that Jesus abided by. The priests were male, and the rabbinical debates were exclusively male. Rather than question the principle of male-leadership Jesus says, “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.” (Matt 5:17) You say, “Well yes, but after his death and resurrection it had been fulfilled and no longer needed.” Later in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council we see that the apostles were still abiding by the principles of the law – otherwise they wouldn’t have asked the question whether gentiles were required to abide by it. An all-male team to settle the doctrinal dispute, by the way. Jesus did not abolish sex distinctions. He said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matt 19:4-5). Other than clarifying divorce and remarriage, he mentions nothing of revising leadership principles.
We are told Jesus had four brothers - James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The scriptures tell us he had sisters, but it does not inform us of their names or number of them. Why? Why didn't one of his sisters take charge of a church or write a book of bible? Notably, two of his brothers did, James and Judas (aka Jude). Similar to not being told Adam and Eve’s daughters names, or Noah’s wife’s name, or his sons wives names.
When Jesus fed the multitudes with “five loaves… and two fish” (Matt 14:17), how many people ate? 5000? No, “five thousand men, besides women and children” (Matt 14:21).
When Jesus fed the multitudes with “Seven [loaves], and a few small fish.” (Matt 15:34), how many people ate? 4000? No, “four thousand men, besides women and children.” (Matt 15:38)
The men represented the heads of the families. This numbering is like that of the book of Numbers whereby Moses counted only the men of Israel who were over twenty and able to serve in the army.
The 70 or 72 disciples that Jesus sent out on mission were most certainly men. The suggestion that since Jesus sent them out in pairs could have meant husband and wife team is silly. He didn’t do that with the apostles and the reason they are sent in pairs is due to the biblical principle of requiring two to bear witness. Paul would always be accompanied by another man – Barnabas, Mark, Silas. Two male witnesses.
Only men were present with Jesus at the transfiguration. Only men are present with Jesus at Gethsemane. Only men were present at the last supper, the Passover meal, which could have included women, yet they were not included by Jesus. The inauguration service of the New Covenant was with the apostles alone, privately. The way Luke described the ascension sounds like only men witnessed it. Jesus says to them, “you will be my witnesses… to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) The two male angles who also witnessed the ascension, then address the “Men of Galilee” (Acts 1:11).
Jesus would be with 12 men or 2 or 3 men.
Even the women who followed him are not described specifically as his disciples. He allows women to follow him but he does not call them to. When Jesus talks about who can become a disciple in Luke 14:26 he is speaking to the men, because he talks about hating “his own father and mother and wife.” Although, later in Acts (9:36) women are clearly called disciples. One of the reason I think the gospels do this, is to make clear Jesus did not appoint women disciplines that had authority.
Jesus never put women in positions of authority over men. You cannot make an argument from silence. Women are mentioned many times throughout the gospels and Jesus didn’t come across feminist marches to address.
DeYoung says, “Our Lord had no trouble being radically pro-women and unequivocally complementarian at the same time. Neither should we.”
Drawing parallels with the male heads of twelve tribes of Israel, Jesus established a pattern of male leadership in the church when he appointed twelve men as apostles. The apostles then continue that pattern.
1 Timothy 2
Let’s begin with what Paul writes to Timothy in his first epistle. Turn with me please to chapter 2.
When it comes to church assembly, instructions differ for the sexes.
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim 2:8-10)
“in every place” – As opposed to just this specific church or churches in Ephesus, William Mounce says, “the phrase refers to the setting of the church universal gathered for worship… The context suggests that Paul is thinking of every place in the world where Christians worship.”
To address the disruption – men should put away anger and pray – sort your attitude.
To address the women regarding disruption – dress appropriately, modestly. How is this causing disruption – if a woman turned up to church in a bikini, do you think that would cause disruption? If she’s wearing a 5-carat diamond necklace sat next to the relatively poor, do you think it would cause disruption? What message is either sending? Sort your outward, to match an inward godliness. Praying in church for forgiveness and world poverty dressed in a bikini and pear earrings, just won’t cut it.
Timeless principles. He continues.
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” (1 Tim 2:11)
Women can learn, but not so they can teach in this setting. Not all men who learn go on to teach. As Keener puts it, “one was to learn in order to be obedient”.
Precisely the order written in the law (Deu 31:12) – there is a continuity - and to do so with a quiet demeanour in submission to the leadership. Not all women to all men, but in context to the church teachers – the leadership.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (1 Tim 2:12)
It’s not about the learned, but the leadership. You learn as much as you can, but leadership is not about education.
The word permit is used elsewhere in the NT with a weight of authority. “I do not permit” is Paul upping his sense of authority on the point that teaching in public assembly is prohibited for women. The elders of the church are the ones who exercise authority over community.
Some have argued that Paul was referring specifically to women in Ephesus who were teaching heresy, but while Paul mentions women who gossip in chapter 5 (1 Tim. 5:13) there is no mention of women teaching heresy. He doesn’t mention heresy. He doesn’t say, “I do not permit the heretical women” or “certain women” but “a woman.” He could easily have said so, but he doesn’t, because the statement is a blanket one, of all women not to teach in public assembly or have authority over a man. Scholar Mounce concludes: “Paul is prohibiting two separate events: teaching and acting in authority. The relationship that exists between the two is that of a principle and a specific application of that principle… Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church.”
It’s not about how high can the women climb? It’s a matter of authority of which women cannot have over men. So if you are debating whether a woman can be an elder but not the senior pastor, or vicar but not bishop, or bishop but not archbishop, you are missing the point. It’s not about position on a hierarchy. It’s authority of one sex over the other.
Some complementarians would say women can’t be elders but can teach in church. Well, teaching in public assembly is exercising authority over men, which Paul forbids.
Paul continues with his reasoning for this which blows this objection out of the water:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:13-15)
His reasoning is not local and time specific. He points to a universal principle established pre-fall, and reminds Timothy of the transgression of that order that occurred at the time of the fall.
He is appealing to the original Economy of Man (that we recapitulated in the previous session). Pre-fall, pre-sin, Adam, the husband, head of family, head of worship of Eden, head of humanity, was given the Instruction and Responsibility, Commandments, Accountability, Authority, Consequences. He is appealing to the original economy - the God ordained order of man. Adam and eve were made from different materials for different purposes.
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve” – indicating God’s intended male authority. The order of creation determined the order between the sexes. Adam was the first born. The biblical principle of the ‘firstborn’ means they carry the responsibility and authority over later arrivals. Eve was created as a helper for Adam; Adam named Eve; God named the human race “man”, and not “woman”; God spoke to Adam first after the fall as the accountable head; Adam not Eve represented the human race; even though Eve sinned first we are counted sinful because of Adam’s sin not Eve’s; we inherit sin through Adam, and redemption in Christ reaffirms the creation order (1 Cor 15:22).
Hamilton says, “There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between Paul’s understanding of the Genesis story and its definitive influence on the role of women in the church.”
The second part of Paul’s reasoning in relation to the first, is regarding the nature of men and women. Why did Satan speak to the woman? The enemy goes for the weak spot. The weaker vessel. The more sensitive and agreeable one. “Did God really say” Satan asked, and she fell for it. And today when egalitarians read Paul, they fall for it again. Paul says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived”. Eve’s reprimand was personal, Adam’s was corporate, because he is the accountable head. Eve was told as part of the fallen world, “Your desire will be for your husband” (Gen 3:16 NIV). The curse was brought about in God’s words “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” (3:17). Abraham messed up because he listened to the voice of his wife. Of course, the husband should listen to the good counsel of their wives, but it’s being led by your wife which ends in disaster. What is true of the nature of women pre-fall, is true of nature of women in Ephesus, and of today. Except as we’ll find out in Genesis 3 the conditions are exacerbated. Nature does not define worth, but design, which is why men are given the headship role. Thomas Schreiner says, “Women are less likely to perceive the need to take a stand on doctrinal non-negotiables since they prize harmonious relationships more than men do”. Adam sinned, as men do, but it is deception – being persuaded to stray from orthodoxy – that women are more prone. It is for this general truth grounded in nature that Paul reasons for male headship.
Any attempt by the women to usurp the male authority, and the men to watch on, is reversing the ordained order in direct parallel to the fall of man. Yet Paul offers real hope even for those who have transgressed the order: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:15) Paul’s logic moved from addressing the men and women (plural, present) in Ephesus; to the singular man and woman to state the general principle; then he backed it up with scripture with the singular Adam and Eve; and finally, in a twostep move, he transitions from singular she (Eve, future tense), to plural they (Ephesians the transgressors, present tense). He uses the typological connection between Eve and the Ephesian women, to correct but grant hope if they repent. If, having repented, you continue in faith… as is proper with love and holiness, self-control, you will be saved, like Eve. The church must repent of the transgression of order, because we are in a mess. And if she does, she will be saved.
When you read the bible it’s helpful to ask three questions: 1) what is authors intent, and how would the recipient understand it 2) what is the universal principle 3) how do we apply this today.
It is as though people will apply a very different hermeneutic when it comes to their pet topic. What could Paul have written for you to believe these plain words? Is there anything he could have written? Are you prepared to live by this book no matter what it says?
Objection – One objection is that of lack of education of women in Paul’s day. Firstly, Paul draws his reasoning from the garden. Other than headship instruction, how is Eve generally less educated than Adam? Secondly, there were many well-educated women in the ancient world, including Ephesus where Timothy is positioned at this time (1 Tim. 1:3). But again, this is not the reason Paul gave. The idea of formal training for church leadership is a modern one. The scriptures do reveal that reading and studying is open to all (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 2:11; Titus 2:3–4), yet, formal education was not a requirement for eldership. If this was about education, why doesn’t Paul forbid uneducated men? Jesus chose rough, down to earth fishermen, “uneducated, common men” (Acts 4:13). Creation not culture is Paul’s appeal.
Objection – Some point to Aquila and Priscilla to argue for egalitarianism. They say that Priscilla instructed Apollos and on occasion Priscilla’s name is mentioned before Aquila. Firstly, Priscilla did not instruct Apollos in public assembly. It says, “Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26) Privately they told him more about the gospel that he was unaware of. Informal discussion between men and women outside the church setting is welcomed. As long as the authority of husband and church leaders present are respected. They didn’t rebuke or correct Apollos even. It says, “He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.” (Acts 18:24b-25) So to say the scriptures mention Priscilla before her husband Aquila is to clutch at straws. In fact, as Grudem points out, Timothy is receiving this letter 14 years after this event in Acts 18, and Priscilla and Aquila would now be back in this same church in Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19). So even though Priscilla would have received 3 years of teaching from Paul and a further 11 years studying with others, Paul prohibits well-educated and mature Priscilla and all women to teach or have authority over the men. The scriptures are consistent. Contradictions only exist when we twist a passage. It’s not about education, culture, or specific heretical women, but God’s ordained order between men and women established at creation.
1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Elders
There are only two ordinary offices in the church that rule, teach, and serve the physical and spiritual needs of its members: Elder and beneath that, deacon. 1 Timothy 3 deals with both.
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” (1 Tim 3:1-7)
Overseer, bishop, pastor, elder, are all synonymous.
Elders must be qualified, not according to the world, but according to scripture. Character is defining:
“the husband of one wife” – means it must be man. It means they can be married – unlike Roman Catholic priests. It means like Adam, they must have only one wife. The second Adam only has one bride. We must reflect that order.
“able to teach” – not necessarily gifted, but must be able to teach.
I’ve been in communities whereby baby Christians are given microphones. It’s dangerous. Pride creeps in and Satan may take them. There is a reason they are called elders. They’ve studied and matured for many years.
Paul connects the order and management of the home with the order and management of the church. If your children are disobedient, and home life if chaotic, how can you be put in charge of the ordering of church activities?
In the fifth chapter, Paul encourages us to treat church members as family members, respecting their roles. “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.” (1 Tim 5:1-2)
In 2 Cor 12.14, Paul expresses his authority as a parent of the church.
Patterns in the home reflect the church and vice versa.
Last time we learnt that the scriptures never tell the men to keep their wives in submission – they are to submit voluntarily. Here though fathers are told to keep their children submissive. Children don’t know any better, they must be corrected and kept under his protective covering. In parallel, Elders too must correct the younger (in faith) when they go astray.
When you survey the landscape of the UK church, it’s no so common to find churches with the offices of elders and deacons. When starting from scratch there isn’t enough people for elders let alone deacon, but you’d expect it of large churches that have long been established. There are churches with “leaders” and senior “leaders.” Churches with one vicar, with one bishop over an area of churches. Churches with husband and wife as the “senior leaders” with others given roles on a whim. There are churches that employ pastors and preachers but then have a second group of elders, who tend to be the directors of the church company or charity. Why are we not following the biblical instruction of a local church with a plurality of qualified elders (who are the pastor/teachers) supported by a plurality of qualified deacons?
Qualifications for Deacons
Deacons do not govern as the elders do, yet they have authority in the activities of serving the church. We read from verse 8:
“Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (1 Tim 3:8-13)
Deacons too must be university educated… oh wait, no, it’s character that matters. Character that has been tested in the small things to begin with.
Again, “their wives” and “the husband of one wife” means they must be men.
“faithful in all things” – women are part of ministry in church. Women received spiritual gifts to serve in the church.
Paul again connects the rightful order and management of their home as necessary for the position in the church.
Two main things are character, and in connection, management of their own home.
Church as Family
Church is the wider family of believers; therefore, the order of the home will be reflected somewhat in the order of the church. So in question of application to the church, it can be helpful to think of several local families coming together in which headship and decisions are necessary. If men are the lead authority in the home, naturally they will be the lead authority when the families join for church. A selection of whom qualify as elders and deacons. Even if we didn’t have Paul’s words on eldership and deaconship, common sense would lead to that conclusion. No one would ever say it makes sense for the children of those families to head the new church assembly (even though they are equally valued before the eyes of God).
When Christians say, “husbands are head of the wife, but in the church women can lead…” What?! If multiple local businesses joined together to form a partnership, no one would expect the apprentices or receptionists or the numbers 2’s to form the new board (even though they are equally valued before the eyes of God). You wouldn’t expect a combination of managing directors and their personal assistants to be the new heads either. Equally it doesn’t make sense to place the women in charge or even a mixture of both parents of each to be the heads or elders of a new church family. Scripture makes perfect sense and is explicit in placing the heads of each selected family to become the heads of the new bigger church family. This never means that the new partners of the business would never listen to anyone below their pay grade, or the eldership to ignore those it’s been given the role to serve.
The mature men in Christ become the covering for the rest of the men, the women, and children.
Also, when you enter the church gathering, your own family order does not terminate. The husband is still the head of the family, so how is it possible for a woman to lead? Are you saying, they can’t lead your family but in church they can lead all families? Paul is consistent throughout all his writing on order, quietness, authority, submission, leadership. You either accept it or you’re compelled to throw the whole thing out.
Ok, back to deacons
In Acts 6, we read the apostles were to “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” (Acts 6:3) to distribute food among widows. What are the chances that today, churches would pick 7 women for this catering role? These are 7 men who are tasked with not just serving out food but supervision. This is likely the appointment of deacons, which means servants who possess authority. Stephen was one of them, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (v5). And in verse 6:
“These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.” (v6)
Previously, I’ve been a "leader" in a church, including preaching, service leading and so forth, but I didn’t know who all the elders were, and they didn’t know me personally. Bad on my part too. There was no laying on of hands in prayer, little instruction. I’ve seen church order done well, and I’ve seen it done badly too, and been part that, and the Lord has taken me on this journey of revealing to me how important biblical order is.
Objection – Some will object to all-male deacons pointing to Romans 16(1-2), where Phoebe is described as diakonos in the Greek, “servant” - the same word Paul elsewhere uses for deacon. Is Paul contradicting himself? No. Three chapters earlier Paul uses this same word of a civil magistrate (Rom. 13:4). In context, Paul is not discussing church office, but rather commending Phoebe on her service to the church which included being a “patron” of many – being generous with her resources for leader’s mission work.
Objection – Others have pointed out that at the start of verse 11, “Their wives” can be translated as “women” and so deaconess along with her deconate husband is possible. As Guy Waters notes: “Paul refrains from assigning a title to these women as he earlier has to elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1, 8). No matrimonial qualification is assigned to these women, as for elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). No provision is made for testing these women, as for elders and deacons (1 Tim. 5:22, 3:10). Paul immediately resumes his discussion of the diaconate in 1 Timothy. All these things point away from understanding 1 Timothy 3:11 as speaking of women holding either the office of deacon or a parallel office.” He is speaking of the character of the deacon’s wife. If his wife is undignified, a slanderer, drunk on worldly things, and unfaithful, his position is questionable.
Deacons are to effectively distribute ministry tasks, considering gifting and wisdom of the men and women who do not hold offices.
Prominence does not mean importance.
The Christian belief is that the people serving the cups of tea are not less important than those preaching. We are all members of the body.
Feminism in the church is dangerous:
It says that you need to compete against men to be equal.
It says you need to be at the front of church to be equal.
They don't, they don't need to earn as much, achieve more, be preaching - because they are equal before God.
Equally worthy, equally loved.
Equating worth with role is non-biblical.
Equating temporal role with eternal rewards is non-biblical.
Everyday, when mankind works together as diverse individuals, we reflect to some degree the unity and diversity of the Trinity. The Church should be best example for the world.
I heard a pastor once say, “the Complementarian chickens come home to roost when the bins need to go out.”
Titus 1
To Titus, who Paul has given authority to appoint new church elders, Paul writes:
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:5-9)
Not one elder/bishop/overseer per city, but a plurality in each town where there was a church.
Again, character is key:
Paul connects the management of his household with his potential to manage the church. If you manage your own family well, you may be given the chance to manage the church family. If you can’t steward your children, how could you steward the men? As “God's steward” you would be in charge of God’s house. Only those that include being above reproach are qualified for God’s institution.
Paul lists five vices and seven virtues similar to 1 Timothy 3.
The stewards must be prepared to stand firm on true doctrine and deliver it to the people. A devotion to the scriptures and the apostolic hermeneutic. Not your own ideas you wish to impress onto the print.
Paul goes on to say those “who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers” those “teaching for shameful gain” “must be silenced” and the elders should “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (10-11,13). There is a responsibly to guard the word of God, as reflected in Adam’s garden role, the Israelite priests, and now the church elders. The principles remain.
Jesus is the “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Shepherds and overseers of the church should be Christlike.
I Peter 5
In step with Paul, Peter writes:
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,” (1 Peter 5:1-6)
Jesus told Peter three times to care for the flock. Now he exhorts elders to care for their respective flocks. To shepherd in light of the age to come and the glory that will be revealed when the chief shepherd returns. Character is key. Don’t care for the flock to receive a crown from the flock. Care for the flock knowing you will receive the unfading crown from the chief Shepherd.
Peter tells the younger to be subject to the elders.
The author of Hebrews calls all to obey:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
It appears egalitarians have a problem with all-male elders, but would have no problem with men submitting to an all-female eldership.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, all the biblical authors are all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Even when Paul makes the point that those in church authority should be able to take a salary, he refers to himself and other apostles and leaders to come after them as an Ox! Oxen are male! He says: “Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.” (1 Cor 9:8b-10) He can call upon the Torah to establish his point because the principles are consistent throughout scripture.
If a Christian wife is not in submission to her husband, she is not in submission to Christ. If members of a local church are not in submission to the elder-husbands they are not in submission to Christ.
Offices, ministries, Gifting
We must distinguish between ordinary offices in the church, various para-church ministries, and then gifts of the Spirit.
Gifts of the Spirit, which I understand did not cease in the early centuries, but continue to be dispensed by the Holy Spirit today, gives the individual the ability to carry out Christian service. Gifts can be used in everyday life. In addition, they are used in ministry activities, and offices in the church. You do not need to be in an official ministry or office of the church to receive and use spirtual gifts. We are all in ministry in that sense. Our gifts do not determine if we enter ministry or office. Gifts alone do not qualify a person for church office, but elders must be at least able to teach. Gifts help, they do not define.
In 1 Cor 12 and Ephesians 4 some people are called by the name of the gift primarily used in ministry. We do the same – “he is an evangelist”, “he is a teacher.” The gift didn’t qualify them for the ministry, it’s their most prominent gifting we refer to and call them by.
There is a difference between apostles appointed by Jesus, and the gift of apostleship today (if you understand that gift continues).
There is a difference between prophet of OT who could be independent, and that of the ministry of prophecy or gift of prophecy today.
Evangelism is not the same as exposition of scripture although it can include this. All members of the church can evangelise in some form, such as telling a friend the gospel. But expounding the scriptures to the assembled body is for those in church authority.
To pastor is to have authority over the church, primarily leading and teaching the flock.
To teach, means to explain the word of God. To expound the scriptures.
There are many gifts.
A healthy church contains a variety of gifts, working in tension.
Elders will likely have several gifts but major in one or two.
All ministries and gifting come under the eldership of the local church. And there is a responsibility of elders and deacons to identify, nurture and disseminate the gifts for effective functioning and building up of the body.
In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul pictures the church as one body made up of many members:
“God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose… The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require.” (1 Cor 12:18-24)
Every member in the church body has a part to play. It's not about who is more important. Everyone is essential. But if the hand is trying to be a foot, or the toe is trying to be an eye, the body will not function correctly. The UK church is presently seriously disfigured, because we refuse to heed the plain words of scripture.
Women’s gifts, wisdom, labour is crucial. And the men and women who are not in office or paid ministry who labour for the lord should be honoured, privately and publicly, as Paul did.
It’s not about equality before God, but rather His ordained order of things.
Objection – I've heard it said many times when it comes to church leadership – “it's not about gender, it's about gifting”. It’s neither! You are expounding emotions not scripture. It's about who God choses, and God choses men, (and when it comes to church leadership) not all men, certain, qualified men. I bet the wife of Moses was more gifted in speaking than him.
I may even prefer a particular woman preaching than a certain man - It doesn't matter. It's not about my preference or who I would have, or about who is more talented, who is most gifted in communication or teaching - it's about what God has said, it's about what God wants, who God prefers, who God chose - and it's about our response to his choosing. Over and over God tests our response – Adam over Eve, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers, Ephraim over Manasseh, Jews over gentiles, Men over women – it's about who God chooses, and how we respond.
You do not need to be an elder or deacon to utilise gifting. Gifts are given to the body, grace given to the individual to use those gifts for the health of the body. I suspect the digital celebrity culture of our time is appealing to the flesh of individuals who wish to elevate themselves apart from the body. You are either a humble part of the bride’s body with concerns for the overall health, or you lust to be your own bridegroom, seeking praise and affection from the bride. The Holy Spirit who gives the gifts requires they are used responsibly, within the guidelines of scripture the Holy Spirit inspired.
Titus 2
Turn with me to Titus chapter 2:
“But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good..”
So, the older women whose character qualifies them, can teach. And who can they teach?
“…and so train the young women…”
Notice it doesn’t say, “those with a gift for teaching should teach.” Gifting is not the qualification; and as Thomas Schreiner says, “women cannot publicly exercise their spiritual gift of teaching over men.” However these women can use teaching gifts in this capacity. You may have a gift for art, but that doesn’t mean you paint on the side of Parliament. That’s called graffiti. Every gift must be used in the proper setting.
What are they to teach the young women?
“… to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
This must really rile the feminists. They are to teach godly character which includes submission to husbands. Rather than writing a book that teaches Paul’s words mean the opposite of what they say… how about teaching the younger women what he does say.
“6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.”
They can also teach the younger men – again character of the taught and teacher is key. A teacher doesn’t necessarily need to be an elder. You don’t even need a gift to be able to teach. Many parents may say they are not gifted at teaching but nonetheless teach their own children many things. Yet a teaching gift can be employed in proper order.
Not stopping there:
“Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” (Titus 2:2-10)
Feminist Christians don't have a problem with David submitting to Saul. The entire book of Philemon is about Paul sending his fellow prisoner back under the authority of Philemon to be a servant. Do they write books on the epistle, saying that Paul didn't really mean that he wanted Onesimus to return and submit to his master? We see throughout bible men who received great blessings through submitting to authority. Is this an egalitarian focus? Only when genders are brought in can they not accept it - they chose to blind themselves and carve their own God. The influence of the hard egalitarianism of the world existed in pockets in Paul’s day, so with wisdom and foresight he knew some would try to explain away his message, which is why he repeats himself so plainly, time again.
Think about the practicalities of women in church leadership. A male elder will often disciple a younger man who it appears God may be calling for ministry. The younger man follows the elder, in the gym, the office, the long car journeys. Please tell me how that would work with a younger woman who is being trained up by a male elder? Anyone who understands the Billy Graham rule knows it’s impractical. Maybe there is two or three holding each other accountable – but anyone who’s been part of church leadership training, knows there are inevitably long periods of times when you hang out together. It’s not appropriate. How can a female pastor disciple a couple of younger men. It’s inappropriate. The biblical principles of male-leadership promote order. Feminism promotes chaos.
1 Corinthians 11
1 Corinthians 11 continues the same principles.
We read the first three verses in the last session, that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (3)
Yet again, he connects home order with church order, exhorting proper expression of worship:
“4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.”
Paul makes clear there are right and wrong ways of worship. This is where people tie themselves in knots and make this a difficult and controversial passage when its main thrust is really quite simple.
This is about honourable order. You can act shamefully, or honourably.
We have already read that what we wear during worship matters. Our outward dress signifies an inward attitude toward yourself, your spouse, church authority, and God.
Inappropriate dress shames your head – not just your own person, but your authoritative head (it’s a play on words). The wife shaming herself and her husband; the husband shaming himself and shaming his head Christ; and we could say members shaming themselves and church authority.
Anthony Thiselton tells us that, “In Roman society a hood… was what a married woman was expected to wear in public as a mark of respectability.” It was not a full veil, but a head-covering such as a shawl. They wouldn’t have their hair flowing down their backs (which was associated with adultery (Num 5:18), but piled up on their heads in a bun, with a shawl-like covering over it. This isn’t an unusual cultural thing. Throughout all of history up until today we see clothing that distinguishes between men and women as an expression of respect and honour.
To the women, if you want to be like man and not dress appropriately, you may as well shave your head, is what he's saying. Which would be utterly shameful for women in Paul’s day. Thomas Schreiner says, “Her failure to wear a head covering communicated rebellion and independence to everyone present in worship.”
As we come to worship, without distraction, our posture conveys order before God. It is important to know who is who. Who is married. Who are men and who are women. Who are the authorities. And the world should see our intention to preserve the distinctions. Women can pray and utter prophecy in the church setting, but “they must do so with a demeanor and attitude that supports male headship because in that culture wearing a head covering communicated a submissive demeanor and feminine adornment.” As Schreiner says. It is not so much about head coverings as it is about heads.
To illuminate the universal and timeless truths, Paul once more appeals to the creation account in Genesis 2.
“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (7-10)
Paul is careful not to say that woman was created in the image of man, as both are created in the image of God as equals (Gen 1:27). Paul’s two-fold reason, is that woman is the glory of man because of the created order of events – woman was made from man (for man, to help him). Woman is man’s glory, and so she should honour him. Her glory is intended to bring honour to the man. And Paul completes his meaning of glory in a moment. The order of creation should be reflected in the order of worship, expressed physically (if subtlety).
The head covering is a symbol of a reality. A symbol that women should wear, and men should not wear. Any church you go to, you will see symbols scattered around the room – symbols matter. This symbol of authority matters. Now, because the word symbol is not their in the Greek, few feminists have twisted Paul’s word to suggest it is speaking of the woman’s authority to pray and prophesy, ignoring the context of dress and submission, honourability, order between sexes. Time doesn’t permit but it really is hermeneutical gymnastics.
From an egalitarian position, you must demonstrate beyond doubt that Paul was not appealing to the creation order to justify role distinctions between men and women.
His reasoning is grounded in the Creation order - not from the world as a result of the fall, and redemption in Christ does not negate this original order - and then he mentions angels as a side reason. Angels too are not bound by culture, geographical location – timeless things for universal principles.
Why would men and women dress appropriately because of the angels? The angels that visit your church gathering, witnessed their fellow angels step out of the covering of God, cross ordained boundaries, and reap chaos. They witnessed the fall of the angels, and the fall of man. To cross the male and female distinctions in church would be to behave alike, and therefore greatly offend the angels. I believe they would be fearful for your salvation. They would certainly report back to HQ.
If we could see the angels who worship with us in church - I think we would act differently. I think we would instantly get in order, as if a top general just walked into a soldiers’ barracks. When angels appear to men in scripture, they are frightened. If we saw angels, young lads would immediately go from boys to men, men wouldn’t dare abdicate authority, and I don't believe any women would dare stand at the front to preach. Where is the reverence and healthy fear of God, knowing not just angels are watching and present, but Lord almighty?
In verses 11 to 12 Paul underlines the dependency on each other before continuing his case:
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor 11:1-16)
Paul is saying don’t get me wrong, you are equal, but differ in role. We depend on each other. We are not independent sexes, and the fact that men are now born of women underscores this dependency on each other, together as the body dependant on the head, Christ. Our individual posture makes up our corporate posture which recognises “all things are from God.”
“Judge for yourself” – he says. He is not saying, make you own mind up – he’s confident they will know from nature his case is true. Paul appeals to nature – the established order of things, “natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity” reflected in cultural conventions. Our conscience and natural awareness tell us what is appropriate. This word nature is the same word in used in Romans 1 when people act “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26).
The head covering was a cultural manifestation of abiding by the creation order.
In societies such as the Spartans, men would have long hair. Jews under a special Nazirite vow mentioned in Numbers 6 would grow long hair. But Paul is not writing this letter to Spartans or those under special vow. But even in our societies today, generally speaking men have short hair and women long, so there is something about the creation order that sticks. In Paul’s day to have long hair was to seriously feminise himself. Women have been given long hair – not as a substitute of the covering (otherwise what he has said doesn’t make sense) – but as a glorious covering. Michael Vanlaningham says, “For a woman to reject this God-given sign of respectable femininity was to reject her identity and role as a Christian woman.” Paul wanted the women to follow the custom of the day and pile their hair on their head, rather than flowing down their backs (Num 5:18), over which a traditional shawl was worn. It wasn’t one or other. Her long hair was a sign that she needed to wear a covering. If a woman prays or utters prophecy dressed like a man, she is denying the creation distinctions.
We can get caught up about what precisely Paul meant with regards to how they should wear their hair or head covering. They would have understood exactly what he meant. The point is not so much about hair or head coverings as it is about heads. Men and women are not to blur the sex distinctions.
To complete his argument, Paul returns to this word honour. A man’s long hair dishonours him, but a woman’s hair is her glory. The woman as the glory of man is to honour him; the hair which is the glory of the women is to honour her. Glory and dishonour are juxtaposed; glory and honour are connected. The woman came before her hair; her hair came from the women, and for the woman, and therefore honours her. The man came before the woman; the woman came from man (Adam’s rib), for the man, and therefore should honour him. She honours him by dressing respectfully in submission, in Paul’s day, with a head covering. God existed before man; man came directly from God, for God’s glory, therefore man should honour God. He does so by dressing honourably in submission to God, as a man, with masculine wear, without head covering.
When Paul says “we have no such practice” some might say he means his churches do not have head coverings for women. That would make no sense since he’s just argued for them. The ESV is a stiff translation (which is accurate but it is referring to those who refuse to wear a head covering). The NIV or NET read better: “If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.” (16 NET) To quarrel or be contentious is the opposite of quietness as he suggested the women be. Paul’s instructions are mandatory for “all the churches of God” in the Greco-Roman world.
Should women wear head coverings today? Should men not cover their heads today? In the UK culture is different. The piling of hair or head covering is not a cultural norm. No one thinks a woman who does not do so is in rebellion to authority. No one thinks a man wearing a flap cap or even a middle eastern male headdress is throwing off his masculinity, quite the contrary. Jewish men wear the traditional kippah (skullcap) as a sign of recognition that God’s authority is “above” them.
It is the principle that we adhere to not necessarily the specific cultural application. The principle is that men and women are equal, and they are designed differently. The role and responsibly to lead is given to men, while the role of women is to support and help in a complementary way. When women pray and prophesy in church (which is an important contribution) they should do so under authority of male headship. Today we should dress in an appropriate way so that it is obvious who is male and who is female.
Remember a hermeneutic principle is to follow the pattern of logic not necessarily the precise stipulation. The principle is not the head covering, the abiding principle is orderly worship. D. A. Carson explains the difference between cultural application and principle: “There is no theology of kissing; there is a theology of mutual love and committed fellowship among members of the church. There is no theology of sackcloth and ashes; there is a theology of repentance that demands both radical sorrow and profound change… the act [of foot washing] itself is theologically tied… to the urgent need for humility among God’s people, and to the cross. Similarly, there is no theology of head-coverings, but there is a profound and recurrent theology of that of which the head-coverings were a first-century Corinthian expression: the proper relationship between men and women, between husbands and wives.” There’s no theology of head-coverings, but a theology of headship. The covering was an expression of the theological principle.
Should any women around the world wear head coverings today? If hypothetically, your church was situated where the dress code is similar to Corinth, then possibly. It’s not wrong for women to wear a head covering in a western church (and I say this because I have witnessed mocking of it) – is it wrong for a bride to wear a veil on her wedding day? Lots of cultures wear head coverings, some as choice, others to oppress, but it’s not inherently bad. I’ve been to a fellowship in the UK where some women choose to wear head coverings, and it can be a beautiful expression of humility, ultimately for the Lord.
Generally speaking, because the attire in the west is very different, women are not required to pile their hair upon their head or wear a covering. No one thinks you are an adulterer for wearing your hair down. Still, sex distinctions should be made, physical adornment, posture, your demeanour should be clear women are under authority. It should be clear who is who. Femininity and masculinity is important. Schreiner declares, “One of the problems of with women taking full leadership is that it inevitably involves a collapsing of the distinctions between the sexes.”
When everything is in order. The focus is on God. When things are disorderly, shameful, dishonourable, attention turns to the members.
1 Corinthians 14
The context again is orderly church worship, with an emphasis on appropriate placing of tongues and prophecy. Before the central text we are looking at Paul says,
“But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”
And then he transitions and continues:
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (33-35)
Some critical scholarship like Gordon Fee will argue that verses such as 34-35 were added or edited later. This is desperation, “to rescue Paul from himself and conform him to our image.” And Carson, Thiselton and alike do not think it’s probable or convincing.
He is not a God of confusion. Interestingly confusion can also be translated, disorder.
You may think, would Paul say women must keep silent in church when three chapters earlier he explicitly says they can pray and prophesy?
But he is not a God of confusion. 1 John 3:9 says that “one born of God… cannot keep on sinning” (1 John 3:9) and earlier in the same letter John said, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8). So, hold your contradictory horses. Both statements must be true, that “women should keep silent” and women can pray and prophesy. You may argue that chapter 11 is referring to the home and not church setting and therefore there is no apparent contradiction (I don’t buy that); you may say that chapter 14 is cultural or local; that he is interrupting himself and that it doesn’t fit the chapter; and a whole clusters of objections and ideas (in fact Carson says there are a legion of demonic objections), but without time to consider all the arguments, I’ll just say are they not to my or his satisfaction.
We’ve seen that women cannot hold authority over men but can pray and prophesy. Prophecy in NT churches and today which is Spirit-prompted utterance does not carry the same authority as OT prophets (it was/is necessarily inferior in authority), which is why it must be weighed, it must evaluated by church authority. The appraisal and teaching of the word were elevated by Paul to a matter of church authority – eldership (and possibly deacons). Therefore, the women must remain silent in submission and not participate in the oral weighing of these prophecies.
How many churches does this apply to? “all the churches of the saints”.
Paul appeals to the Law: “as the Law also says”. This isn’t a local or cultural observance, this is a universal principle, spoke of in the Law. What precisely does he mean by Law? Paul, never used the word law to refer to Jewish tradition. For example in chapter 9:8 he refers to the Mosaic law (Torah), and in Romans 3:19 he appears to be referring to both the Mosaic law and the rest of the OT. He doesn’t quote a text from the law because when speaking about church order he has already referred to the same text twice. 1 Timothy 2 and three chapters earlier he refers to Genesis 2, the creation order between men and women, pre-fall. Once more he’s appealing to the originally established pattern of male headship.
If a man uttered prophecy and then a woman weighed the prophecy, the creation order would be reversed. Harmonised with his instructions in 1 Timothy 2 - women are not permitted teaching authority over the men- the function of ruling or governing - and within that broader framework includes weighing prophecy.
Paul wishes all to learn and be encouraged, and so, if the women had questions about the weighing of these prophecies, the proper context is to ask their husbands at home.
Again, this is about acting shamefully or honourably before Christ who is the head. Paul’s plain words have been twisted and butchered by a neo-feminist ideology.
Carson says, “We are facing an ideology that is so certain of itself that in the hands of some, at least, the text is not allowed to speak for itself.” Which is why Paul persists to lay down the apostolic authority:
“Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor 14:33-40)
It's borderline sarcasm. He could easily have said the same to egalitarians today. After four thousand years of the biblical principle of male headship, followed by a further 2000 years of church history, you, you have received revelation that goes against all biblical societal, ekklesial, and home order and all the churches of God?
Everybody throughout history believed the plain reading of scripture when it came to roles in home and church until our lifetimes, pretty much. Are you’re honestly going to tell me for two thousand years since Christ the church got it wrong, and it’s just a coincidence that in a post-modern, pop-spiritual, western culture, charged with neo-feminism, swamped in aggressive equality movements, you have discovered the truth that no one could understand until now? You’re trying to convince us that it means the opposite of what it says and just so happens to be more comfortable in today’s society?
How arrogant are you that you think you can change God’s order established at creation?
We have to be very suspicious of any new doctrine that completely changes the face of church. And make no mistake, the face has changed.
Here is something to ponder: Is this a salvation issue for those who practice it and teach contrary to his instructions? Because he clearly says, “If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” Now, he could be saying, if you do not recognise this order, then your claim to evaluate will not be recognised. But the force and the phraseology reminds me of the warnings of Jesus:
“whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father” (Matthew 10:33).
“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory” (Luke 9:28; cf. Mark 8:38).
Jesus’ words are a salvation issue, are Paul’s? They’re his words too. He inspired it. Especially when in chapter 3 of this same letter he warns:
“Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him.” (1 Cor 3:16-17)
Order is of such importance, because if you are not in order, you are not in the body as you should. If you refuse to get in order, the body will reject you, because the head authorised the expulsion.
Biblical order builds up. Worldly order tears down. He is a God not of confusion but of order.
Paul is not bound by culture, as the ekklesia (public gathering) in his day meant women were not permitted to say anything at any point. Whereas he encourages women to pray and prophesy and be very much part of the new covenant ekklesia, ensuring proper order under the authority of men.
Proper order means the body can use the gifts effectively.
Egalitarianism causes division in the church. I read a tweet by a church leader, who said to the effect of: “I’m no longer a complementarian and now identity with the egalitarian position”. Another leader responded to the effect of, “I couldn’t agree less, but we’re still brothers”. The first leader then replied – “and we can still do ministry and worship together”. But how is that possible? You see once egalitarianism is in the church, a complementarian can’t be part of it – because they cannot submit to women leadership. But an egalitarian can be part of a complementarian service – because they may submit to male or female leadership. And though they are flipping thousands years of interpretation on its head, they will say you are the ones, causing division. They accuse you of the very thing they are causing. This is how Satan tries to divide and conquer.
1 Peter 2
1 Peter 2 is often used to support the concept of ‘the priesthood of all believers’. Some then use this phrase to regurgitate rhetoric about an egalitarian position: “We’re all priests” and therefore gender shouldn’t matter in church authority.
Let me quickly demonstrate that this phrase is based on a verse taken out of context.
1 Peter begins in chapter 1:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.” (1 Peter 1:1-2)
Who is the letter addressed to? The Jews!
In verse 2-4 it speaks of:
“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:4-5)
And then verses 8-12, Peter who is called primarily to the Jewish believers talks about the Jewish people,
“They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.9 [and this is the verse they pick up on] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:8c-12)
Again in chapter 4:
“For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.” (1 Peter 4:3)
It is explicitly clear he is speaking directly to the Jewish people. When gentile Christians quote 1 Peter 2:9 to support their version of egalitarianism I doubt they are even aware that Peter is referring to Exodus 19.
“you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”(Ex 19:5-6)
Peter’s recipients are the Jewish remnant of the nation of Israel who he is affirming have been chosen to part of that royal priesthood, the holy nation, for God’s own possession in the age to come. Boy, is this passage misused.
As we come alongside the Jewish people, we, in a sense become part of the priesthood, that is true. In the same way man was originally created as a priestly people. It’s about returning our design from fallen man who submit to and serve Satan, to the regenerated original design as a priestly people before God. But as a priestly people Adam was head. The Jews were a priestly people, but the women did not take part in the inner temple duties – only certain men. A priestly people does not mean we all have the same function. The same goes for Christians – we join the priestly people, becoming a priestly people, but only certain men will father the house.
I now hear countless leaders spouting this phrase “the priesthood of all believers” and then suggesting local church gathering therefore require no leadership or structure. We can sit in a circle like hippies waiting on the Holy Spirit to lead, and just see what happens. What are you talking about? That will end in disorder. Are you completely ignoring the apostolic instructions of appointing elders and proper church worship? As we join the remnant of Jews to become a priestly people, under the head of the High Priest Jesus, we require structure and authority for proper ordering of worship and activities of church life.
Summary of church economy
In brief summary of the New Covenant economy of Man.
Biblical order sends a message to the world and angelic creatures.
Children submitting to parents - models the gospel;
Wives honouring and submitting to husbands - models the gospel;
Husbands loving their wives sacrificially - models the gospel;
Husbands submitting to Jesus - models the gospel;
Member’s orderly expressions, submitting to Elders – models the gospel;
Elders who willingly, eagerly, shepherd the flock in light of an unfading crown of glory – Models the gospel;
The church body submitting to Jesus the head - models the gospel;
Jesus the Son of God submitting to God the Father - is the gospel.
Home order matters because the presentation of the gospel matters. Church order matters, because the presentation of the gospel matters.
In warfare, the army dies to save to king.
In biology, the organs die to save the head.
But for the Gospel: the head dies to save the body.
Husbands and elders should take note.
If we abided by the biblical economy of man with men and women complementing each other, the word submission would go from hijacked to redeemed. Submission is one of the primary ways God builds your character. I think it's why I've had some awful bosses in the past - I required it to learn submission and build my character - if you can't submit to humans you won't submit to God’s will.
Women are of great importance in the home and church.
What ministry can women do in church? - pray, prophesy, teach children, teach other women, and be part of all kinds of ministries. Basically, anything that doesn’t involve having spiritual authority over men – Elder, Deacon. Women can be on church staff as youth minister, counselling ministries, children’s minister, administration, and so forth.
Egalitarianism places pride above preserving distinctions. It says I can be anything I want.
Decades ago, a Church of England minister said, “if they allow women priests, they will allow homosexual priests.” There is a connection. People trying to be different than their design. Women trying to be men, men trying to be women and everything in between. They all say, "I can be who I like." “I can replace God’s choice.” And God gives them over in their delusion and pride.
It’s a kind of replacement theology. Gentiles replace Jews. British Israelites replace the Jews. Women replace men. Like Satan – We want to replace God with ourselves, replace his chosen people with our chosen people, replace his ways with ours.
There is a deep-seated bitter jealousy and selfish ambition. I refer to James: “But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.” (James 3:14-16)
What we are witnessing is not just elevation of women above men, but of women above Christ.
There is a connection with women preachers, Catholics worshiping Mary, and the doctrine of Dominionism - where the bride of Christ takes over the world. All elevating women above or equal to Christ. The woman preacher behaves like Eve when she steps out from the covering of her husband and proper eldership and places herself as an equal with God. The worshipping of Mary is to elevate the historical woman above Christ. Dominionism is to put the bride before the groom. What credit does Jesus receive if we build the kingdom for him to collect, as opposed to him treading the winepress alone? Jesus is coming back for a bride in splendour, the church he built, but he’s not coming back for a victorious church, he’s coming back with the victorious church. He will take the credit alone for establishing the kingdom. It is an anti-Christ spirit; An in-place of Christ spirit. It is a Jezebel spirit that elevates herself above and takes Christ’s credit.
The bride in splendour submits to her husband who is head and saviour. The harlot bride uses her husband to elevate herself. The neo-feminism of the world getting into in the church is an expression of this.
It is not a coincidence that those who attack the male terms of God are also pushing women leaders in the church. God is revealed in male terms – Father, husband, king, Jesus as a man. He is not and cannot be a mother, wife, queen, woman.
We are in danger of smearing God’s image. In danger of idolatry.
It isn't really a man/woman issue. It's a submission issue. It's an authority issue. Next time we’ll see in Gen 3 that the issue was submission – that’s what went wrong – failure to submit to husband and God, began the downfall. From then on man would have submission issues.
But “she will be saved” IF she repents and continues in faith.
The Future Kingdom Economy of Man
The future Economy of Man, or the Kingdom economy of man, we hold as future, is something rarely if ever addressed when considering the present economy.
A way to consider whether a doctrine we hold is correct or not, is to ask ourselves: When Jesus returns and sets himself up as king on this earth and restores it to proper order – does the bible support our position? Of course, some things will be different then – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels” (Matt 22:30 NIV) in that sense, but we are not sexless. We will have our resurrected bodies, even with the capability of sexual intercourse (but we will not use our bodies in that way). Jesus in his resurrected body is still a man – God incarnate. To say he is sexless is blaspheme. In the kingdom the principles of marriage, for example, continue. Actually, an unbelieving remnant of the nations will be granted to continue to live into the millennial reign where they will marry even. So, all kinds of things will differ, but biblical principles continue.
We have seen a pattern of male-headship from Genesis to the NT, and therefore we would expect this pattern to continue into the future kingdom economy of man.
Scripture does in fact follow this pattern to the end of Revelation. Application may vary slightly, but the principles of male-leadership continue. We are given information about the future world government - and it is men who preside over government.
Jesus said to the apostles: “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt 19:28; cf. Luke 22:28-30)
Jesus, a man, is King of Kings. The twelve men he chose will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel that are all named by the patriarch’s male names.
Not only that, but Revelation 21 reveals that 24 male names are eternally inscribed on the New Jerusalem. “and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Rev 21)
The 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 are 12,000 from each tribe of Israel. They “have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.” They are all men. “It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes… as firstfruits for God and the Lamb” (Rev 14:) Like a great entourage of special priests who serve King Jesus. Boy are egalitarians going to dislike the 144,000 men.
The latter chapters of Ezekiel describe the Holy land with its temple in the future economy. We read, “Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me… They shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charge.” (44:16) So much for patriarchal culture. Only these male priests can serve in the future temple. Yes the priesthood will vary somewhat and the precise stipulations of the law will vary but there is a continuity of principles. The Holy land is divided “for inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Eze 47:13) Each named after the twelve male heads of the tribes.
Ezekiel 48 harmonises with Revelation that the gates of the city are named after the tribes of Israel.
Are you offended that all these are Jewish men too? The King of kings is a Jewish man.
Family order is a picture of God’s universal order, with fathers ruling God’s family. Which is why the family comes under attack from the prince of this world.
In the future kingdom, fathers will rule over families;
Fathers will rule over of the tribes of Israel;
Abraham will be honoured as the “father of many nations” (Rom 4:17);
No doubt fathers (elders) will rule local worship;
Jesus the second Adam will father Israel and the mediatorial kingdom of earth;
The heavenly Father rules over the heavenly dwelling, and indeed all of creation (1 Peter 1:17);
If it doesn’t fit with the kingdom to come - why are you so called “building a Kingdom” contrary to the economy of the King - you're building your own kingdom - you're carving your own King. You're making a God in your own image, with instant economic rewards for associates.
This pattern of male-leadership as Grudem proclaims, “will be evident to all believers for all eternity.”
Final comments on the Economy of man
Other Objections
Let’s fire through some common egalitarian objections, of those we haven’t covered, before we make final conclusions.
Objection: Galatians 3:28
Too frequently is Galatians 3 misinterpreted:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)
Women can preach because there is no male or female in Christ, they say. Do women still give birth in Christ? The context is unto salvation. Women remain women, men remain men, Jews remain Jews, gentiles remain gentiles, slaves may still remain as slaves when they give their life to Christ.
We have the same relationship with God - vertical relationship.
We have different roles between us - horizontal relationship.
Do not confuse the two.
It is speaking of our vertical standing with God, not horizontal roles between us. Paul is saying, what matters is a circumcised heart.
Objection: What if men aren’t stepping up?
Well, are the women encouraging their husbands and supporting them to do so?
I once heard someone say, “all the men were put in prison during persecution, so the women had to lead”. Well, if there are no men, then the older women in Christ can lead other women.
A preacher once said: “You will never find an Ester without a Modecai, a Priscilla without Aquilla, Deborah without a Barak. When God uses a woman he doesn't circumvent his order of spiritual authority and covering.”
Even in the UK where women outnumber men by 2 to 1, there is still plenty of men. I’d suggest we’re failing to encourage and attract the rough fishermen, both the Peter’s and Paul’s, partly because of the feminization of the church.
Objection: What about women who say they are called?
They may be called, but called to what? Any claim must be tested by subjecting it to scripture.
There are plenty of opportunities to be employed by church or para ministries – children’s ministry, evangelistic ministry, church admin, student work, ministries to the poor and vulnerable, music, education etc. The church is in great need of spirtual mothers. We only prohibit what the bible prohibits. Yet the offices of elders and deacon who function in the governing roles in the church are reserved for qualified men.
Objection: Leadership is about servanthood not authority
This is false dichotomy.
Jesus was the model of servant-leadership, but he also has great authority. Husbands and elders must serve in a way that models Christ: servant-leadership with authoritative duty.
Objection: Just as the culture of slavery was wrong then, so male leadership is wrong today for our culture
Marriage and the church are a gift from God, slavery is not. Marriage (which includes male and female roles), which the church is designed to reflect, was established at creation. Slavery was not. Slavery is a temporal cultural man-made structuring, marriage is a universal principle. People such as William Wilberforce appealed to biblical principles to abolish slavery.
In fact, those who say male leadership is wrong today are akin to the slave owners who appealed to the culture of their day. Grudem explains, “it is likely that a closer parallel to the Christian defenders of slavery in the nineteenth century is found in evangelical feminists who today use arguments from the Bible to justify conformity to some extremely strong pressures in contemporary society (in favor of slavery then, and women being pastors now).”
We are not to follow the culture. We follow biblical principles.
Objection: What about women martyrs?
Brave women have been martyrs over the centuries. Men have too, but all men cannot become elders, certain men. We are all required to lose our lives - to the point of martyrdom if necessary – it doesn't change church order.
Objection: Women weren’t educated back then
We’ve already dealt with this but, education is not the qualification for eldership. Secondly education does not change the nature of men and women. Why did Jesus pick uneducated men to lead the church?
Objection: But Women’s needs, and wisdom, and insight are necessary when making top-level church decisions
Sure. Does the elder not glean wisdom from his wife? Does the elder not commune with the other husbands who pass on concerns and discernment? Does the elder not speak to the women in the church?
Women do not need to be present in a room for eldership to guide in a direction that is beneficial for the body as a whole.
Objection: Appealing to Cultural context
Again, we've dealt with this, but look at who the likes Paul and Peter are talking to:
The Corinthian church, Ephesian church, Colossian church, Galatian church, Pontus, Cappadocia, biblical Asia, Bithynia, personal letters to Timothy, to Titus - they're saying the same thing to different people in different locations - "all the churches."
Paul did not conform to culture for his letter to the Romans includes: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Rom 12:2)
Paul was bound by culture? He flew to the highest heaven. Paul went to heaven where he witnessed the universal, timeless principles of order.
There are some parts of the world today, where the churches don't have problem with it because it's not a cultural issue.
God doesn’t rely on guess work from historic culture to build doctrine, rather He inspired every word we need in scripture. Neither are the biblical authors helpless by-products of their culture resulting in historical determinism. Paul doesn’t appeal to cultural context for biblical principle. He appeals to the creation order and applies it to his day.
The authors could resist the culture of their day. While the human authors were influenced by their time and culture which would be reflected in their uses of idioms and style, there wisdom was not restricted to their locale, they push through cultural barriers and speak universal truths, writing down precisely the ideas of the Holy Spirit.
Objection: Could Paul have been Wrong?
Paul is borderline hated by feminists – I’ve heard people say, “I understand your hermeneutic.. maybe Paul got it wrong". If your argument is that Paul’s words were for those days, not now, or that some of what he said is unbiblical and not of God – Who decides which bits are correct or for today? If male eldership is in error, or only for then, why isn't the rest of his doctrine on how we do church in error, or for then. If you say women can preach because Paul was only speaking to those back then… then you also have no grounds to preach at all, because any argument from scripture means he was talking to them, in their times - you dismiss yourself. Why would we single out this one aspect of Paul’s teaching – not the necessity for elders, but that women can’t be elders. Not the necessity for marriage, but male headship - just the gender roles we don't like. It's pride - we should have no problem with it - but pride says I can do anything and I don't care what God has to say about it.
Scholar William Mounce says that “Paul equates, in terms of authority, the Jesus traditions and his own judgements.”
Objection: Does your logic not mean that only Jews could become elders
The church was entirely Jewish at the time which is why the apostles and first elders were Jewish. But gentiles quickly joined the church some of whom became elders. Their Jewishness wasn’t like their maleness. Both men and women were part of the church from the beginning but only the men were permitted to hold the highest positions in the church.
Objection: Women’s ministries have been blessed and therefore proof of God’s ordination
Can you think of obvious false male preachers who have massive followings? We could say they are blessed by God and their influence validates their ministry. Alternatively, this influence can be a curse. God may well raise up false prophets and teachers and preachers knowing that they will be held more accountable.
I’ve seen women who were called to women’s ministries and once they gain a following, they get addicted to the celebrity influence as men do, and then they stray from their boundaries and decide they will extend their ministry over men. We see this all the time with men and women – they start well, God blesses them with gifting, and then they end up becoming narcissistic. You want to climb out and high? - God will give you a leg-up, and your fall will be even more of a show. Do not equate influence with divine blessing or fruit.
They are not known by their gifts; they are known by their fruits. Not followers; biblical use of the term fruits. “Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Corinthians 11:15)
Objection: Junia was a female apostle
This is a technical favourite for egalitarian theologians.
Romans 16 says this: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” (Rom 16:7)
There are two facets to this objection. Firstly, Junia was an apostle. Secondly, Junia was female.
Regarding the latter, the name in Greek can be either female (Junia) or male (Junias, which can be short for Junianus).
It’s like saying there was a female apostle called Alex. Alex could have been a man. “But it could have been a women”. But if scriptures say only men were apostles, then Alex was a man.
Regarding the former point. The ESV, which I’ve just read from, correctly translates it according to the most extensive research of the Greek over the last two decades: “They are well known to the apostles”. Not “among the apostles” as others have translated. It doesn’t say Junia was an apostle.
What’s more, is that the word apostle is the same word for messenger. John 13:16, 2 Corinthians 8:23, and Philippians 2:25 use this same Greek word to mean messenger and is translated as such. So, it could be translated as “well known to the church messengers.”
We are unsure if it’s a man or women, Greek grammar indicates Junia is not one of the apostles, and it may not be referring to apostles at all.
A claim founded on layers of uncertainty and ambiguity.
Objection: Deborah was a leader of Israel
Deborah was a faithful prophetess who God used to make judgements on his people. Judges 4 says,
“She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.” (Judges 4:5)
Does that sound like a supreme court judge of Israel? Deborah did not teach the people publicly. She is not leading the nation. Those in dispute would come to her privately to hear her wise decisions, functioning as prophetess. One judgment was that Barak should summon 10,000 men and attack the Canaanite army. Deborah is spoken of very different than the other judges. Scholar Barry Web, explains, “She is a prophetess, and hence the agent by which Yahweh’s word will enter the story to summon Barak to fulfil his role as a saviour. Hence for the first time “judging” and “saving” are clearly distinguished from one another. While the two functions may be combined in one person, judges are not necessarily saviours, and saviours are not necessarily judges.”
It’s also important to recognise there was an absence of male-leadership in Israel. But note that Deborah doesn’t summon the army, she said Barak should. Barak is the male saviour of Israel. She affirms male-leadership and never asserts herself as leader. She is a Godly example to women who lack leaders. Barak was fearful and did not want to man up, so he said to Deborah, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go” (Judges 4:8). She replied, “I will go with you… But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” (Judges 4:9 NIV).
She doesn’t usurp his authority. She doesn’t say she will co-lead. If men aren’t stepping up look to Deborah’s example. She says she will support him. She’ll come along to encourage and support him.
In the following chapter, Deborah and Barak sing a song together, that begin with the words, “the leaders took the lead in Israel” and rather than Deborah considering herself as a matriarch, she said “I, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel.” (Judges 5:7) A godly mother who didn’t try to elevate herself, but thanked the Lord for the male princes who stepped up.
At first, you would think the woman who the Lord will “deliver Sisera into the hands of” is Deborah, as it turns out, Sisera fled to the tent of a woman called Jael. As he slept, she hammered through his temple a tent peg. Barak could have received the honour for winning the battle and killing Sisera himself. But because he did not fully step up and lead in faith as he should, a woman of little standing would take the glory.
Now, because he didn’t entirely abdicate authority, 1 Samuel 12:11 would acknowledge that Barak was one of four men “the Lord sent… and delivered” them. In the hall of faith in Hebrews 11:32, Barak is counted but not Deborah.
The scriptures do not say Deborah led the militarily, taught publicly, was a priest, or ruled over God’s people. Deborah was a courageous, faithful, wise woman who we should honour. We do not honour her, when we paint her as something she would not have wanted to be painted.
What we should also consider, is the book of judges contains things we should not imitate. The judge Samson married a philistine woman and went with a prostitute, for example. The last verse of Judges sums up the period: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) So we should be careful in any case of following examples at a time when chaos abounded.
Objection: Israel had two Queens
On the two occasions women rose to power, namely Jezebel (1 Kings 16-21) and her daughter Athaliah (2 Kings 11).
They were the culmination of a string of wicked kings and they too led the people into wickedness. They are examples of ungodly leadership. Under God’s sovereignty this evil disorder acted as a temporary judgment on the people. Women in leadership is a judgement on the falling away of God’s people.
God is our Father, not Mother. God is King, not Queen. Jesus is male, not female. Our theology of God provides the foundation of our theology of headship.
Objection: Men have long abused their position in home, church, society
Well, that’s not biblical, is it? Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
People are obsessed with twisting the words of Godly men.
Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)
Later “false witnesses came forward… and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”” (Matt 26:60-61)
Paul says, eldership is for qualified males who govern sacrificially.
Feminists say, “Paul doesn’t think women are equal, and they should be subjected to the continued patriarchal abuse.”
If you are “seeking false testimony against Jesus” (Matt 26:59), you will find it.
False witnesses will always set up an evil strawman, before summoning the wagons.
It’s not as if women never abuse position of power either, as we’ve seen with Jezebel and her offspring.
Objection: It’s too hard now to change now
It’s too difficult to change direction of a bit ship we’ve spent years building and overseeing. We would have to sack leaders and change so many things… and repent.
Someone has actually said to me, “yes, when you explain it like that, the bible speaks clearly… but it's a big ask for churches to change and… there is fruit.”
Jesus said, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them… he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock" (luke 6:46). You can build your home, and church, or life, without foundation and publish proof photos on Instagram of how great it is. Everything appears well when the sun is shining, and an application of beauty filters. But when the floods come, when the pressures mount - it will fall down. Or you can build your home, church, life on the rock of Jesus and his inspired words written in his book.
Objections conclusion
Objections are ten a penny. And objections that take an age to deliver, use complex language, are difficult to follow, send you into a daydream, and never pointing to scriptures, are common. I observe this all the time. They will sit for an hour and go all round the houses without pointing to the scriptures. Or pull out some elaborate theory on the culture of the day... or whatever, placing more weight of authority on secular historical writing than the Word of God.
Conclusions of the Ordering and Economy of Man
Let’s begin to land this then.
Male-leadership from Genesis to Revelation
From Genesis to Revelation those charged with the responsibility for guarding God’s sanctuary and protecting his people are male: Adam, the Levitical priests, the twelve apostles, church elders, Christ as the head of the Church, the future Levitical priests, the future 144,000 priests, and the apostles who will rule with Christ.
Beyond this we observe:
All persons of God are male.
Adam was the head of his wife as well as the garden.
All those God made covenants with or announced covenants to are men – in both Old and New Testaments.
After Adam, those chosen as a vehicle to change the world… those God continually chose as leaders were men – Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, the Apostles etc.
Israel is represented by the man Jacob / Israel.
All twelve tribes of Israel are represented by men.
Those placed in charge of the nation, from national leader to local leader are male.
The NT continues the principle of male leadership in home and church (e.g. Acts 15:22). And this shouldn’t surprise us because every doctrine of scripture can be found to be rooted in the Torah.
He is called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob today. He not called the God of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel.
All angels mentioned are male.
All 66 books, by 40 plus authors, both Old and New Testaments, are written by men.
Both OT and NT are primarily written to men.
Men are designed to be taller, stronger, with a deeper voice for natural authority and leadership, and this evidently plays out today and in every society since the garden. The list goes on.
Is God or his word chauvinistic? No! It’s his chosen order and economy of man for the benefit of man to the glory of God.
There is not one example in all of scripture of a woman publicly teaching an assembled group of God’s people. Not one.
Error and False Doctrine
If our doctrines are aligning more with the world than orthodox beliefs, or historic beliefs and creeds… it’s likely your hermeneutic is going askew. We don’t look to the world for answers. The ruler of this world is set on distorting distinctions with doctrines of demons. Distinctions of male and female, good and evil, holy and perverted, pure and unclean. He is blurring the pallet. A continual bait and switch.
Jesus warned the church of Thyatira in Revelation: “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel” (Revelation 2:20). The spirit of Jezebel in Revelation is the climax of the prophecy that "your desire shall be for your husband" in Genesis 3. A perpetual desire for the authority of man. If you want to know whether the spirit of Jezebel and indeed Ahab is in your home and church, then read their story.
The church is now full of Jezebel’s and Ahab’s.
It is becoming harder to stand firm on the truth. Universities, bible colleges, churches, they are walking the way of the world. The nation should be influenced by the church, but presently the church is way more influenced by the nation. When we do that, God hands us over to the spirit of error.
As the end of age draws near, the last century and half has produced demonic doctrines that have gone mainstream - Satan knows how to twist the gospel…he knows his time is up. Evolution to replace the genesis account; he inspired a woman to start a rapture theory in Scotland that's gone worldwide; he promotes replacement theology (although that's been around a lot longer); he's dumbed down hell; fluffed up heaven; he’s twisted circumcision; he’s made it appear that roles within the home and church is cruel to women; It's dangerous.
Feminism is the opposite of chauvinism: Both fighting and competing for rule. This is the opposite of Biblical manhood and womanhood. Living within our God given design together is glorious.
The reflection of Trinity is found in the makeup of the church. It is both diverse and unified.
Consequence / Devastating
The consequences of designing our own economy apart from God’s are devastating. We throw away so much that God has in store for us: His protection, guidance, covering, platform for relationships and so much more.
Eve stepped out of the protection from her husband and God. Every woman has since.
Adam failed to step up and protect his bride. Every man has since.
You end up eating the fruit of your own way.
Adam listened to his wife. Abraham listened to his wife. For the reversal of these consequences, we, as the bride must listen to the bridegroom. We should celebrate our complementary and ordered differences. The beauty in the diversity of male and female.
Without biblical order, chaos slithers into the home, church and society.
God’s economy
In God's economy there are two kinds of men:
The first Adam and the second Adam.
We are born in the first Adam, but we are born again in the second Adam.
To be ordered in God’s economy we must be born again. To then go on to behave out of order is to deny your new nature in Christ.
If this is true. How many church members are acting shamefully, dishonourably, denying their new nature? Some, will be faking a new nature, of course.
The reason the church fails to call our parliament to account, is because the ordering and economy of the church is a mess. Fathers of the church should call the fathers of the nation to bow before their creator the heavenly Father. Instead, some leaders of the world are quite rightly calling out the weak, dysfunctional, timid body that we have become.
Church Order Decline
Roughly 7 years ago I taught on this subject, and I provided a long list of well know pastors (past and present) or organisations that held a solid complementarian position. Interestingly, two or three on that list now hold an egalitarian position. Have they re-aligned with culture or the bible? Were they previously wrong along with thousands of years history?
Rev Paul Williamson of the Church of England, who protested at the consecration of Bishop Libby Lane in York, said he had informed the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, of his intention to speak.
He said: "When I spoke I addressed the Archbishop as 'Your Grace', and used 'please' to request to speak." "He did not allow me to speak. He did not look me in the eye."
Internally convicted, Williamson spoke loudly and boldly: "The Council of Nicea in 325 states clearly in Canon 1 that priests are men and uses gender specifics. The Church of England is bound by the Council of Nicea."
C.S. Lewis saw the potential harms ahead. He called the idea of the ordination of women in the C of E as “a revolution in order.” Lewis writes, ““Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to ‘Our Mother which art in heaven’ as to ‘Our Father.’ Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does… if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.””
He said that if the church of England went ahead with the ordination of women priests, “the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation.”
David Pawson, tried to warn the church. They told him, if you publish your book titled ‘Leadership is Male’ you will be dropped by the big churches and event organisers. Pawson was a man of integrity and the next generation, have hardly heard of him.
The UK church, including the church of England has been warned. Many times, by many men.
I too, in this two-part study (as part of the larger series we are in), have done what I can to teach, exhort, and warn about the order and economy of man particularly within the home and church. It will not be the last time, but on this matter at least I believe I can say, my hands are clean; I am not “accountable for their blood.” (Ezekiel 3:18)
Call to Obedience
If you lean more towards an egalitarian position, then good on you for sticking it out this far. But I want to ask you this question again: What could Paul have written for you to believe that leadership is male? Could the bible have said anything for you to believe?
Not only does the bible not have one example of a woman teaching in public assembly of God’s people, the scriptures prohibit the very thing. We are not talking about one unambiguous passage. We have a number of explicit passages that continue the principles from the original economy of man, right the way through the OT and into the coming kingdom. What could the apostles have possibly written for you to believe that women can't preach in public assembly or have authority over men in home and church?
Here are some more questions, and I’m not at all attempting to be patronising… these are questions I ask myself on occasion when studying a passage to check myself that I am being consistent:
Is your position clearly found in scripture?
Do you accept the inspiration of scripture and the authority of scripture? Or just the inspiration?
Could you be applying a different hermeneutic when it comes to this passionate topic?
Can you honestly say that culture is not persuading you of your position?
Is your position easier to establish in today’s culture?
Could Satan profit from your position? Does it change and undermine the family and church dynamic from all of history?
At the back of your mind, keep these words: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)
God is not the author of confusion. The bible is written for everyday people, not guys in ivory towers that require decades of fine tooth combing to deliver the message. That was the dark ages and look what damage the church did. Yes, we can mine the word of God, but you’ll never drift far off by taking the plain reading for what it is.
Some pastors who hold to the truth are anxious to preach this message. But we must, for the health of the bride.
It comes back to the picture of building the orphanage. Jesus said, you do this, you do that - enough said. Do it, and don't let pride drive your emotions; don't let pride drive your gossiping; don't let pride encourage you to start equality movements against the King. The one on the throne gives the roles… do it.
Jesus said, “The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.” (John 7:18) The following chapter in John 8 he says, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.” (John 8:28) Jesus was able to redeem us by being under authority, submitting to the Father’s will, that included temporal submission to earthly beings. We can be redeemed by being under authority, submitting to Christ’s will, that includes temporal submission to earthly beings.
Male-leadership matters. Proper ordering of the home and church matters.
It matters because the presentation of gospel matters.
It matters because we are called to preserve God’s law and order established at creation. Called to preserve his distinctions.
It matters because through the economy of the home and church “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 3:10)
It matters because we are designed and called to be image bearers of the Triune God. To deny the economy of man is to deny the economy of God.
It matters because the mission of man is only made possible with an appropriate posture of the bride. "‘Her economy will blossom or bust as the authority is good or bad. A bad head results in a bad body posture.’ (paraphrase of Zornes)
It matters because during warfare, if the soldiers are not in order, the church cannot defend herself from spiritual attack.
It matters because the bride must be orderly before she walks down the aisle. It matters because the bridegroom does not deserve, will not accept, will not return, until she is orderly, mobile, and operating as she should, dressed in splendour, and individually and corporately in submission.
It matters because, for God to presently be in communion with his bride, we members must function correctly. To hear God’s word, we must be obeying God’s word first. Otherwise, you are saying you are choosing not to listen, but want God to speak something else. For God to be in communion with his bride, she must humbly stand within his universal boundaries.
Allow me to labour one of these points.
If Satan can ensure the bride of Christ is dishevelled, dysfunctional, and a disorderly mess, he believes he can delay the bridegrooms return. To the married men, would you have accepted your bride if, when you turned around, she was drunk, covered in sick, not properly dressed, or functioning correctly? No! You’d likely send your ushers to take her out the back, help her get cleaned up, sobered up, even if it delays the day a little. After all you deserve it. He deserves it. Satan is attacking the doctrine of male-leadership because he knows his time is up.
Home and church order are directly connected to the return of Christ Jesus. Because the order of the bride is directly connected to the return of Christ Jesus.
The doctrine of male-leadership is directly connected to eschatology.
Economintarian
Last time I noted the new term Economintarian, that, as far as I can tell, was coined by Ben Zornes.
He wrote an article titled Adios Complementarianism, arguing that we should drop the term and move to Economintarian. This may sound trivial… but I think his reasoning is valid.
I’m not a fan of putting myself in Christian boxes. When people ask about my faith – I don’t say, “I’m an evangelical this that and the other.” I simply say, I’m a bible believing Christian. I steer away from isms. But in language it’s helpful to use terms that broadly distinguish one set of views or beliefs from another. Which is why I may say I’m a complementarian, for example. But over time, the meaning of terms change. What is means to be an evangelical today, is different from what it meant 20 years ago. Some that call themselves evangelical today would be labelled as a liberal back then. Which is why I tend steer away from calling myself that, unless I’m speaking to the older generation that retain the earlier meaning. Zornes then has a point that the term complementarian has been softened to the degree that it can almost mean anything by the self-labeller. To help others understand our position then, the term Economintarian is valuable.
Zornes emphasises the spiritual battle of the church, and that “complementarian” as a word is to soft, too malleable, easily abused or used as a trojan horse. My observations over the years would attest to this.
He goes on say this:
“Whereas Complimentarian sought to emphasize how male and female “complimented” each other, it left vague one key thing: who carries the melody? In other words, where does the authority (and thus responsibility) reside, particularly in the marriage relationship? Complementarian thought morphed into a strong call for men to ever only exercise “servant leadership.” Which, let’s be honest, meant perpetual capitulation to their wives. Complementarianism subtly turned authority within marriage into a sort of fairy dust which magically fell upon whoever secular culture told us we should side with. It emphasized cooperation, collaboration, coddled wives, and cowardly husbands.”
He's got a point. I will leave a link to his article in the description. If we are going to deal with this issue properly as men, then we best man up, stop pandering to those who malign God’s word, and clearly teach what it is and what is isn’t. And if the term Economintarian or economintarianism can help, then let’s use it.
The term immediately spoke to the me.
There is an economy of the Trinity. And in reflection, there is an economy of Man.
As an Economintarian, then, I believe the term helps explain the biblical position quite fittingly, and sets us apart from those who play fast and loose with terms.
The term Complementarianism has served us well, and I’m thankful for the main proponents, Grudem, Piper, Carson and others, and I will still use the term Complementarianism when appropriate, but I do hope the big theological players will pick up the term Economintarism. And I will certainly start to use it more so.
It’s not about the terms, but about clearly communicating sound doctrine.
In Summary of the Order of the Cosmic Kingdom
To wrap up this interlude between Genesis 2 and 3 and as a very short summary of the order of the Cosmic Kingdom:
The Triune God of the bible is a God of many attributes, described in male terms, who is sovereign over total reality.
God’s dwelling is in the heights of the heavens, ruling from a real throne, in a real temple. His universal kingdom is not to be confused with his future earthly kingdom, the heavenly throne distinct from the Davidic throne.
The field of play, from a biblical worldview is the heavens and the earth (and under the earth).
Players include Angelic creatures, below which is man (both have free choice), below which is animal life, all under the heavenly throne.
Though equal before God, roles have been given to man, namely male-leadership, for proper stewardship of the earth, as God’s mediatorial kingdom.
The doctrine of creation is as follows: God created the entire universe out of nothing; it was originally very good; and he created it to glorify himself.”
The heavens and earth were a blessing. “Blessing means the absence of friction, everything working in harmony as God designed it.” Man and his spouse, animals and birds, the ground, vegetation, climate… all perfectly ordered, complementary and in symphony.
Today man is trying to establish a new order of the world. Seeking and living for their own glory. Drawing up their own rules, with themselves as the Kings of kings. Kings of the world’s kingdoms. This is nothing new, though today’s technology allows for Satan to make a run for it. He will not be successful. Eventually we all find out that we are players within God’s cosmic Kingdom, and we will have to accept the consequences of breaking his law and order.
As corrupted as the world may be, from our 21st century context, peering into the scriptures, we see the patterns of Godly order, and that humanity was meant for something better.
Only Jesus will restore the order completely, including the economy of man.
Let us follow him and apply the principles of that original good order in our own lives.
Next up, Genesis 3 – see you then.
Be blessed!
* * *
Adios Complementarianism - Ben Zornes
For a specific reference please contact us here.