The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17).
This post challenges David Hind's recent attempt to defend the role of women in church leadership. Hind has a vested interest in egalitarianism since he and his wife Susan are joint senior leaders of One Church in Leicester which is an AG Pentecostal Church with strong New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) associations.
Firstly, it is important to understand that this subject has nothing to do with women reaching their "full potential" and similar emotive arguments based on human standards. (2 Corinthians 10:4; Galatians 1:11). These kinds of arguments focus on ourselves e.g. "your best life now" as often articulated by false teacher Joel Osteen. (Philippians 2:3). Furthermore, arguments should not be based on culture. Biblical wisdom and worldly wisdom are antithetical. (1 Corinthians 3:19; 2 Corinthians 1:12). As Christians, our focus should be on God's will regardless of worldly considerations. (Matthew 6:10). Our concern should be: What is God's blueprint for church leadership?
Christians should not be too quick to jump on the egalitarian bandwagon in this critical debate since it has huge implications for marriage and church life. The reality that men and women are equal in value and dignity and yet different in function and role is strongly asserted in the scriptures. Just because there have been/are abuses by ungodly male leaders does not invalidate God's Word. (Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 3:19).
The main debate on the subject of women in ministry focuses on two positions: egalitarian and complementarian. Egalitarians reject the historic and literal reading of the scriptures that demonstrate distinct roles and purposes for men and women from creation. I recommend Mike Winger's series for those who want to look further into this subject:
Women In Ministry Archives - BibleThinker. Winger is what is described as a
"soft complementarian". In other words, he views the biblical role of
"elder" to be prohibitive for women, but he rejects other restrictions placed on women as unnecessarily restrictive and biased. Winger demonstrates that in many cases, egalitarian scholars/teachers fall woefully short of sound hermeneutic standards and use arguments that are unsustainable biblically. The onus on Christians is to be Bereans if we are to avoid accepting views based on insufficient evidence, poor reasoning, inconsistency, and eisegesis. (Acts 17:11).
Jesus' attitude toward women was groundbreaking in that he showed honour and respect towards women unknown in the culture of His time. This post does not challenge the view that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to men and women. Nor does it dispute evidence that in the early church women were evangelists*, prophetesses, and deaconesses, and that these roles are legitimate for women today.
* The term "evangelist" or "apostle" is often overstated to include single instances of women conveying a specific message to men. (Matthew 28:7; John 4:1-42). These instances do not demonstrate that women held ongoing positions of authority over men within the church.
I will work through Hind's points below.
* Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).Most teachers explain these verses in terms of problems specific to the Corinthian Church which faced challenges relating to cultural norms, immorality, division, and the misuse of spiritual gifts. Since Paul acknowledged that women were "
praying and prophesying" in 1 Corinthians 11:5, these verses cannot be taken outside their specific context without creating an internal contradiction within Paul's writings.
* Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:11-14).
This passage is transcultural. The plain reading of the text is unmistakable. Paul is careful to maintain gender roles as ordained by God in the creation. (Genesis 2:20). Paul follows the ruling with two reasons. 1. The order of creation and the pre-fall reality - Adam was formed first; 2. The post-fall reality - Eve was deceived and became a transgressor before Adam.
* Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her. (John 20:17-18 cf. Matthew 28:7-8).
Hind mentions that Jesus' resurrection was witnessed by a woman and claims that she was an "evangelist" to the disciples. Mary was extremely privileged to be the first person to see Jesus following His resurrection. However, it should be noted that this did not make her an "apostle to the apostles" as some claim and she did not later become a church leader.
* Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house (Colossians 4:6). Egalitarians base their argument on the presumption that Nympha was an elder simply because the church met at her house.
* For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. (Micah 6:4). It is a mistake to class Miriam as a leader of Israel. Do we build a doctrine on single verses of scripture? There is no indication that Miriam had any authority over the men of Israel. Apart from this single reference in Micah 6, it is always Moses and Aaron who are referred to jointly, never Moses Aaron and Miriam. (Exodus 4:10-17,7:10). When Aaron and Miriam opposed Moses, it was Miriam,
not Aaron, who became leprous due to the Lord's anger. (Numbers 12:1-16). Moses followed his father-in-law's advice and appointed
men as judges over the people.
"..look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. (Exodus 18:17-27).
Pulpit Commentary:
"Miriam, the prophetess, who led the praises of the people at their great deliverance (Exodus 15:20), and who probably was charged with some special mission to the women of Israel (see Numbers 12:1, 2)."1
Matthew Poole:
"Miriam; a prophetess, to be assistant to her brothers last mentioned, to be example and counsellor to the women: God furnished them with magistrate, priest, and prophet."1Barnes:
"Moses, Aaron, and Miriam together, are Lawgiver, to deliver and instruct; Priest, to atone; and prophetess Exodus 15:20 to praise God; and the name of Miriam at once recalled the mighty works at the Red Sea and how they then thanked God."1
* When Priscilla and Aquila heard (Apollos), they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:26).
Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, (Romans 16:3).
Christian Research Institute: "Complementarians see Priscilla as one of numerous women who were fellow workers with men in the early church. Yet their prominence does not undermine the essential principle of male authority."2
* Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (Romans 16:7).
The phrase
ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις "men of note among the apostles" is an ambiguous expression that can be legitimately translated in two ways:
they were well known to the apostles (ESV), or,
they were among the apostles (NIV). The Greek text leans in favor of the ESV translation. Apart from Romans 16:7, Junia is not mentioned either in the New Testament or in the extra-biblical writings of the time. Got Questions: "
Later writings are conflicting and inconclusive in determining the true identity of this individual. With the existing information, the syntax of the Greek language provides the best means of understanding what Paul meant when he wrote that Junia was outstanding (or 'well known') among the apostles."3 John Chrysostom was a fourth-century church father who referred to Junia as a female apostle.
There is some debate about the name Junia/Junias, and it is by no means conclusive that Junias was a woman. Bible Hub: "
Paul's kinsman and fellow-prisoner: Romans 16:7 ((here A. V. Junia (a woman's name) which is possible)."4 Apart from this issue, Paul's use of the term "
apostle" is fluid. An apostle could be one of the original twelve. (Galatians 1:17-19). In Paul's case, he was appointed as an apostle by Jesus Christ post-resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:7). The generic use of the term
"apostle" refers to individuals who were sent out to be messengers/ambassadors of Jesus Christ. Given that this is the
only albeit ambiguous reference to a possible female apostle in the New Testament it would be over-ambitious, even presumptuous, to make a case for women apostles in the sense of
authoritative apostles where no female apostles are mentioned elsewhere.
* Hind challenges the complementarian view that the apostles chosen by Jesus were all men. He claims that this is a pre-resurrection situation and that post-resurrection roles have expanded to include Gentile men and women who are now allegedly released into leadership. There is no evidence to support this theory. Paul's explicit instructions about appointing male elders negate Hind's claim.
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. An overseer (episkope), then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money.. (1 Timothy 3:1-4).
Hind's incompetent interpretation of Biblical Greek is on par with his other teaching skills!
Hind "The word here for an elder is a masculine word in Greek, 'presbuteros'." (19:00 mark)
The noun overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 is episkope it is not presbuteros.
Strongs: "επισκοπης noun - genitive singular feminine
episkope ep-is-kop-ay': inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian episcopate -- the office of a bishop, bishoprick, visitation."5
Titus 1:5 has the noun
presbuteros. Strongs:
"4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder. The NT specifies elders are men. (The feminine singular, presbytera, never occurs in the Bible.) [The feminine plural, presbyteras, occurs in 1 Tim 5:2. It refers to aged women, i.e. not women with an official church office or title.]"6
My question: How do we get a gender-neutral definition from "the husband of one wife"?
Polygamy is an unlikely explanation for the phrase
"husband of one wife".
Meyer:
"μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα] This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilised heathen, and even among the Jews (comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.; Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Antiq. vii. 2), it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an argument against such an interpretation in the phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, 1 Timothy 5:9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which absolutely never occurred.."7
* 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. (Galatians 3:28).
Galatians 3:28 is typically used by egalitarian scholars to control the meaning of other passages. As Winger puts it, this verse is their "silver bullet".
Significantly, the Greek conjunction kai (male and female) is used in this verse, whereas the adverb οὐδὲ is used for "Jew nor Greek.. slave nor free". Scholars generally agree that "male and female" refers back to Genesis 1:27. Some egalitarians (Stendahl) argue that Paul obliterates the gender distinctions in Genesis 1:27 in this verse by making a distinction between original creation and "new creation". However, this argument fails since others (Witherington) have noted that Paul upholds gender distinctions elsewhere. (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9-11; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19). This verse does not obliterate gender roles; rather it confirms the inclusion of the three groups cited into one people in Christ.
Sonship status defined by Paul
Paul's inclusive definition of "sonship" (males and females) has four specific applications:
1. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.
You are a son, you are also an heir. (Galatians 3:29).
2. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Full participation as sons "in Christ". (Galatians 3:26).
3. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24).
4. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, you are also an heir through God.
A true internal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 4:6-7).
We cannot legitimately stretch Paul's definition of "sonship" to include function and roles. Those who do so go outside the context and create a new category from 'status in relationship to God and the kingdom' to 'status in relationship to one another in every aspect of the church'. This is a huge departure from the context of the passage and ignores other passages that do talk about functions relating to gender.8
* But I want you to understand that the head (kephalē) of every man is Christ, the head (kephalē) of a wife is her husband, and the head (kephalē) of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3).
Strongs: "kephalé - Usage: (a) the head, (b) met: a corner stone, uniting two walls; head, ruler, lord."9
Hind argues for
"source" as the definition of
kephalē rather than "
head". It should be noted that
"source" is
not acknowledged as a possible interpretation of
kephalē in any major lexicon. The definition
"source" originated with a short article by Stephen Bedale in 1954. His definition attracted a firestorm of criticism from scholars which continues to this day. Interestingly Bedale's definition of
kephalē did not remove the connotation of
"authority over". Arguments regarding
"source" as a nonauthoritative definition are based on ignorance.
Bedale:
“That is to say, the male is κεφαλή [head] in the sense of ἀρχή [beginning] relatively (sic) to the female; and, in St Paul’s view, the female in consequence is ‘subordinate.’ . . . But this principle of subordination which he finds in human relationships rests upon the order of creation, and includes the ‘sonship’ of the Christ himself . . . while the word κεφαλή . . . unquestionably carries with it the idea of ‘authority’, such authority in social relationships derives from a relative priority (causal rather than merely temporal) in the order of being.”Zondervan Academic:
"Whether or not one accepts the argument about the word’s meaning, at no time did Bedale imply that his interpretation removed the metaphorical connotation of 'authority over'. Given how prominent his article has become in some circles, it is strange how rarely his actual exegesis of 11:3 is recounted."10
* But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 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. (1Corinthians 11:2-16).
This passage appears to be a cultural situation. However, the
principle of male headship has not changed. I recommend Alan Parr's short video on this subject:
Do Christian Women Have to Wear Head Coverings Today? (youtube.com)
* Hind also mentioned "leaders like Esther". Esther was prominent, but she definitely came under the male authority of Mordecai!
.jpg)
