Does the Bible Teach THIS About Headship?

I was reading today a blog post from Andreas Kostenberger’s blog titled “Biblical Foundations.”(http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=51)
His blog post titled “What Does the Bible Teach About Headship?” was supposed to show the male leadership in the home and church is not a traditional thought, but one found in the Word of God.

However, there are problems with his argument. First, regarding his five reasons for the male’s headship in the home and church, Kostenberger lists two questionable factors: the first is that of “God’s holding Adam—not Eve responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first.”

But did God do this? Did Eve get off scot-free? No. Let’s go to Genesis 3 to see what really happened:

“He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you not to eat?’
The man said, ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’
Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’
The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” (Genesis 3:11-13, ESV).

Notice here that when Adam is questioned about disobeying God, he blames it on Eve; and when God questions Eve, she blames it on the serpent. It would seem then, that the serpent is at fault—but God punishes all three parties:

“The LORD God said to the serpent…To the woman he said…And to Adam he said…” (Genesis 3: 14, 16, 17).

God punishes the serpent, Eve, and Adam. Eve gets punished for her sin APART from Adam. Adam does not get punished for Eve’s sin, but for his own:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…cursed is the ground BECAUSE OF YOU…by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground…” (Gen. 3:17-19). Adam is not punished for Eve’s sin; if he was, Eve would never have had pain in childbirth (Gen. 3: 16).

The next reason Kostenberger gives for the male’s headship is “the woman’s designation as the man’s suitable helper.” I looked up the word “helper” in the Septuagint (LXX) and the word for “helper” here is “Boeithos.” This same word is used of the LORD God in Hebrews 13:6 and the scripture reference Paul uses from Psalm 118:6. This word in no way labels the woman as just a “help” meet, but someone who comes to the aid of man. In short, the word “helper” is a reflection of the nature of God—for God comes to the aid of His people, not only in the days of Scripture, but even today.

The next statement that puzzled me involves Romans 5 and its implications for 1 Timothy 2:
“In the New Testament, Paul speaks of Adam’ s representative actions on behalf of all of humanity (his ‘federal headship’) and of Christ’s serving as the head of a new humanity (Rom. 5:12-21). Paul also repeatedly affirms God’s creation first of Adam and then of Eve and ON THIS BASIS MAKES PRONOUNCEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE MAN’S HEADSHIP (1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).”

Let’s first approach the last sentence in this previous statement. Kostenberger argues that Adam’s being created first makes the male head in the home; but where do we read that Adam’s time of creation before Eve is what made him the head of the home? In Genesis 2, the Lord God formed a woman from Adam’s rib and officiated over the first wedding in Scripture. Adam names her, but isn’t given lordship over her. When is he given headship? In Genesis 3, when Eve sins:

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b).

The word here for “rule” in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) is “kurieuo,” which means “to be lord over.” Only in Genesis 3 is Adam made lord over his house, which means at that point, he becomes head of the family. While he existed as head over creation in Genesis 1 and 2, he doesn’t become head of the home until Genesis 3, when the Fall occurs.

Now, let’s deal with 1 Corinthians 11:8-9:

“For MAN WAS NOT MADE FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”

Kostenberger cites this as the reason that Paul appeals to male headship; however, in this passage, Paul is not appealing to male headship alone, but how male headship over the wife and home impact women exercising their gift of prophecy and their right to pray during public worship. However, this seems to be the argument of the Corinthian congregation instead of Paul. The reason I believe this is because Paul comes to a different conclusion in verses 11 and 12:

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, SO MAN IS NOW BORN OF WOMAN. And all things are from God.”

Did you read that? Even though the first woman, Eve, was born from man, man is now born from woman, he now comes into the world through a woman giving birth. There is an even plane here in terms of male and female that Paul seems to draw on in verses 11 and 12. Neither man nor woman are INDEPENDENT or without the other, so women wearing head coverings in worship is not a necessity.

If Paul negates male headship here bearing a role in women wearing head coverings (and exercising their gifts during public worship), why would he appeal to creation order in 1Timothy 2 to prevent women from exercising their gifts in the public assembly at Ephesus? Why would Paul contradict himself in two different letters to two different churches? Complementarians who interpret this passage in such a way are the ones who are theologically liberal and fail to hold the hermeneutical principle of Biblical consistency.

Let me add another note to this debate. If the Lord didn’t require women to wear a public sign of their husband’s authority in the church (while they were exercising their gifts), what makes Kostenberger and other complementarians believe that God AUTOMATICALLY gives man the leadership reigns in the church? If man and woman are on equal terms (according to 1 Corinthians 11), then why are they treated UNEQUALLY in 1 Timothy 2?

1 Corinthians 11 is a major passage; but it helps us to understand 1 Timothy 2 in a better light. The passage itself is not referring to the authority of the husband over the wife in the church or the home; instead, it is referring to a false teaching. But I will leave that for another time.

Definition-Twisting: "Epitrepo" in 1 Timothy 2:12

EGALITARIAN CLAIM 8.5: TEMPORARY LOCAL COMMAND: Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit…” use a present tense verb that shows it to be a temporary command. It could be translated, “I am not now permitting a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (299).

Answer 8.5a: This argument misunderstands how Paul uses the present tense in commands (300).

Answer 8.5b: This argument would soon lead many people to avoid many of the commands of the New Testament. Here as elsewhere, egalitarians use a process of interpreting Scripture that will quickly nullify the authority of Scripture in the lives of Christians today (301).

In the last post on 1 Timothy 2, I attacked the idea that the pastor of a church is the “mediator” between God and the people. 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that “the man Christ Jesus” is the ONLY mediator between God and men; therefore, we don’t need any other mediators to serve, which means that pastors can’t serve in that capacity. They can serve as “shepherds” in the footsteps of “The Good Shepherd,” but they can’t serve in His mediatorial role.

This post will continue studying 1 Timothy 2. Dr. Wayne Grudem has devoted an entire chapter to debunking egalitarian interpretations of 1 Timothy 2, but, as always, falls flat on his face and makes complementarians look bad in the process.

The egalitarian claim here states that because Paul uses the word “epitrepo” (to permit) in his letter to Timothy, 1 Timothy is a letter that is occasional in nature—referring to the situation at a local church rather than instituting a universal rule binding for all time. Grudem responds with the idea that egalitarians fail to examine how Paul uses the indicative and that their perspective will drag down the authority of Scripture in the lives of other believers.

It is true—Paul does use the indicative, and it does have meanings of timeless importance. Nevertheless, DESPITE the indicative, words do come with inherent meaning—otherwise, why would one word mean something different than another? For example, take the Greek word “dei,” which means “must.” Let’s say that all words were the same: now, “dei” (must) in the indicative form would be no different from its subjunctive form (which would mean “might be”). Now, for example, an overseer “MIGHT BE” the husband of one wife. Imagine what sort of implications that has for leadership in the church! “Dei” however, comes with inherent meaning, and it means “must” and is a word of necessity.

So is the word “epitrepo” (to permit). I looked the word up at www.dictionary.com and I found the following definition: “to afford an opportunity for.” The word “forbid” means “to ban, to hinder.” I looked up the word “epitrepo” from an online Greek New Testament (www.laparola.net/greco) and found these definitions:

1) to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct2) to permit, allow, give leave (Part of Speech: verb)
2) to turn over (transfer), that is, allow: - give leave (liberty, license), let, permit, suffer.

A definition that I recovered in my notes said that the word “permit” means to “give consideration to CIRCUMSTANCES or CONTINGENCIES.” These two words, “circumstances” and “contingencies,” indicate the occasional nature of Paul’s letter to Timothy. The definition of “epitrepo” from www.dictionary.com does the same: “to afford an OPPORTUNITY for.” These definitions indicate that, while “epitrepo” is an indicative verb, it is a verb that indicates a certain amount of time.

Proverbs 30:5 (ESV) tells us, “Every word of God proves true…” This means that every word is clean, uncontaminated, good and perfect in its essence. Because this is true, we have to examine every word (the jot and the tittle) to discover what God is trying to say. For instance, we can’t take the words “commit murder” and rewrite them to say, “kill.” There is a difference between committing murder and killing—for a person can kill an animal (a non-human). Genesis 9 allows humans to kill animals for food; but nowhere in Scripture is a person allowed to take the life of a human being.

These distinctions are very important; and the fact that Paul uses “allow” and not “forbid” shows that Paul wanted to give this restriction in a positive light—while these women couldn’t teach yet, they could learn and prepare for when the time would be right. Paul’s language in 1 Timothy 1 shows how encouraging Paul was in regards to these women:

“12I thank him(X) who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful,(Y) appointing me to his service, 13though formerly I was a blasphemer,(Z) persecutor, and insolent opponent. But(AA) I received mercy(AB) because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14and(AC) the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the(AD) faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15The saying is(AE) trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus(AF) came into the world to save sinners,(AG) of whom I am the foremost. 16But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. 17To(AH) the King of ages,(AI) immortal,(AJ) invisible,(AK) the only God,(AL) be honor and glory forever and ever.[d] Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:12-17, ESV)

1 Timothy 5:1-2 -- the "Elder Men"

I wrote in a recent blog post on 1 Peter 5 that the word “presbuteros” could mean both “old” and “overseer” at the same time. I stated that it is very possible that the situation in 1 Timothy 5 could be the same.

In my last blog post, I covered the use of the two words for “elder” (presbuteros and presbuteis). I noted that, although there are cases where the word “presbuteros” is used for both “old” and “leader,” there were two passages that revealed the two words being used in fixed situations. When the two meanings are placed near each other, the terms “presbuteros” and “presbuteis” are clearly defined. Despite the fixity of the terms, however, being old in age qualified a person for leadership positions among God’s people (the nation of Israel). Thayer’s Lexicon defined “presbuteros” with the following definitions:

1) elder, of age
1a) the elder of two people
1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1b1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
2a) among the Jews
2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
2c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God (Part of Speech: adjectiveCiting in TDNT: 6:651, 931).

There is one definition that stands out most (from our last post on the Old Testament: that is, “members of the great council or Sanhedrin (BECAUSE IN EARLY TIMES THE RULERS OF THE PEOPLE, JUDGES, etc., WERE SELECTED FROM ELDERLY MEN).”

Thayer’s Lexicon helps us see that old men were selected to be on the great Jewish council because of their wisdom and knowledge. This surely can be seen to be a continuance of old men serving as counselors from the time of Solomon and then Rehoboam (1 Kings 12).

It is now time for me to tackle the issue of Biblical Eldership in the New Testament.

To do this, we will start with the text of 1 Timothy 5:

“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, ESV).

Similar to my post on 1 Peter 5, these first two verses make it seem as though the “elders” of verses 1 and 2 are old men and women—since Timothy is to treat these men and women as “mothers” and “fathers.”

Verses 3-10 refers to widows. Verse 3 says, “Honor widows who are truly widows.” Widows, in this case, are those who are up in age, who have lost their spouses. Notice that Paul writes in verse 4, “If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their OWN HOUSEHOLD and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.” The widow would have possibly had “children or grandchildren,” which mean that the widow would have been of some significant age. If the widow had family, they were to “honor” their parents, “make some return,” provide for them in their old age. Yes, this would be pleasing to God, for, as Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:2-3, “Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Paul quotes here from Exodus 20:12. The children and grandchildren of widows would be following this commandment spoken by God Himself if they took their parents in and cared for them in their old age. How important is it that widows be cared for? “But if anyone does not PROVIDE FOR HIS RELATIVES, and ESPECIALLY FOR MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, HE HAS DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER” (1 Tim. 5:8, ESV). To not provide for one’s relatives was to “deny the faith,” to run from the faith, to desert what one believed, to live ungodly. It was a serious charge against someone to not provide for their own family. Paul wrote that the person who abandoned their family was “worse than an unbeliever,” which meant that the person who abandoned their family would be seen as someone who had never come into the Christian church, someone who wasn’t part of the Lord’s family!

Verse 8 says, “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband…” The older widows were to be selected to serve in the church if they were 60 years old or older. I won’t go into their requirements for selection, now, seeing that the key of this post is to explain 1 Timothy 5.

Verse 17 is the next verse that catches our eye, for it involves the word “elders”: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” Here the word for “elders” is “presbuteroi,” and this refers to the office of overseer, for these elders “rule” in the churches. The word for “rule” (proistemi) means to be “set over others”. These were the overseers of the church, not just old men and women.

Verse 17 mentions the double honor that comes with laboring as an overseer. Paul points out the first group in line for this, “those who labor in preaching and teaching.” In case the above evidence regarding “elder” does not suffice, this phrase confirms my belief about these elders being overseers in the church. Notice that verse 18 gives quotes from the Old Testament (Deut. 25:4) and the New Testament (Luke) regarding compensation for those who labor in Christian ministry. Verse 19 continues to discuss the office of elder, by telling Timothy how to handle accusations against them: “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” Verse 20 tells Timothy how to practice church discipline against the elders: “As for those who PERSIST in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”

It is at this point that I’d like to stop and discuss what the “elder man” and “elder women” of 1 Timothy 5:1-2 mean. As I stated earlier, some have said these verses refer to “old men” and “old women.” But the problem with this is that the end of the chapter, vv. 17-24, deal with the office of elder. We’ve already covered verses 17-20, but verse 22 talks about the “laying on of hands,” which was a sign of ordination to an office in the church. One can see the importance of the “laying on of hands” with Timothy; Paul wrote to him in 1 Timothy 4:14, “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders LAID THEIR HANDS ON YOU…” As Moses laid his hands on Joshua in the Old Testament, and as the elders laid their hands on Timothy when he was installed as Pastor, so should Timothy do the same—but be careful about who would be ordained as a fellow elder in the church.

This is what Phillip Towner, writer of the commentary on 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus of the New International Commentary on the New Testament wrote regarding context of 1 Timothy 5:

“Paul first addresses Timothy’s way of relating to men. ‘Older’ (presbuteros) in this context is primarily a comparative category of age (1 Peter 5:5). A precise age-range is difficult to pin down (see 4:12 and note; Titus 2:2-3), but depending on which classification of ages Paul followed, an ‘older man’ would be at least older than forty and possibly older than fifty, However, despite the breakdown of age and gender groups that seems to replicate the interpretation, two things frustrate it. First, Paul has just used a cognate term, ‘presbuterion,’ in reference to the committee of elders who lead the church (4:14), and in 5:17 and 19 these elders will be mentioned again. Second, in that later reference there will be discussion about the disciplinary process to be followed in the case of erring elders. It is germane here to point out that probably part of Timothy’s task in Ephesus was to correct the leadership, which had come under the influence of the false teaching. That leadership would have consisted of men drawn from the age range above Timothy’s. And since the activity Paul prohibits as the younger coworker relates to older men could describe a ‘harsh disciplinary rebuke,’ it seems possible that Paul at this point is thinking ahead to 5:19 and how Timothy should exercise his authority to correct elders” (330, 331).”


What makes this conclusion so probable is that, when you look at all of the New Testament’s use of the word “elder” (presbuteros), in addition to passages that distinguish the office from someone of “old age,” you find that the New Testament NEVER ONCE uses “elder” for “older.” The New Testament distinguishes between these two meanings, and provides two different words for purposes of distinction: for the word “elder” (the office) the New Testament uses the word “presbuteros”; but for the word “older” or “old,” the New Testament uses the word “presbutas” or “presbutidas” (see Titus 2:3, 4). The word “presbutas” in Titus 2:2 comes from the word “presbuteis” of the Old Testament (Lamentations 5: 14).

Whereas there was some overlap of the word “presbuteros” in the Old Testament, meaning either “older” or “someone of great rank,” the New Testament does not contain such an overlap. Whenever it wanted to refer to the office of elder, it always used “presbuteros.” This can be seen throughout all of the Book of Acts, as well as James 5:14, and the Gospels, where the Pharisees refer to the traditions of the “elders."

Well, this clears the “elder men” of 1 Timothy 5:1—but what about the “elder women”? I’ll write on this in my next post on biblical eldership.

Biblical Eldership in the Old Testament

My last post on this subject involved 1 Peter 5 and how the term “elder” was used simultaneously for both the office of “elder” and a person of old age in the churches. And I stated that I would return to the text of 1 Timothy 5 with further discussion. I will still do that, but first, I need to cover some ground in the Old Testament. If we’re going to grasp the understanding regarding “elders,” the Old Testament would be the first place to look.

In Exodus 3:16, among the nation of Israel, Moses has to assemble the elders to tell them about God’s decision to deliver them from Pharaoh and Egyptian oppression. It seems then that, from the beginning, “elders” served as leaders among God’s people, for God told Moses to tell them (desiring to get His leadership “on the same team” so to speak). The word for “elders” here is “gerousia,” which refers to a smaller group of elders. I’ll come back to the “gerousia” at a later time.

The elders are not only informed of God’s plan to deliver them—they are also to slay a lamb for their families in order to spread the blood on their doorposts and prevent the death angel from taking the lives of their firstborn (Ex. 12:21). This, too, is the “gerousia.”

But there seems to be a contrast between the “gerousia” and the group of all elders, known as the “presbuteroi.” In Exodus 18:12, when Jethro eats a meal with Aaron and the elders, the term for “elders” in the Greek Septuagint is “presbuteroi.” (For those who may not know, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament). However, the context of Exodus 18:12 is that of leadership, for we see Aaron here, being the priest.

In Exodus 24, when the nation renews its covenant with God, an interesting analysis of the Greek is discovered. In verse 1, the elders of Israel are referred to as “presbuteron”, but when Moses goes up with the other leadership, “Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu” (v.9), the “elders” of Israel are labeled “gerousias.” The elders that remain however, those that Moses doesn’t take with him, are called “presbuterois” in Exodus 24:14. It seems then, that the gerousia was a special group of elders, but all the elders were acknowledged as being in the leadership.

In Leviticus 4:15, we see that the elders (presbuteroi) were to lay their hands on the head of a bull whenever a slaying or crime was committed but no one knew who the guilty party was. In Leviticus 9:1 the elders (gerousian) are assembled with Aaron, who will sacrifice to the Lord on behalf of the people.

In the Book of Numbers, we find mostly the “presbuteroi” being mentioned. In chapter 11, Moses has told the Lord that he can’t do the job of leader all by himself—he needs help. The Lord tells him to take seventy of the elders and bring them to the tent of meeting. Which 70 is Moses supposed to pick? “Gather for Me seventy men…WHOM YOU KNOW TO BE THE ELDERS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR OFFICERS…” (v.16) It seems, then, that the seventy chosen to be leaders of the people (with Moses) were those who had been ruling officers among the people already. These seventy elders had already been working in the leadership; to place these men in an even greater position then, would prevent such a strenuous adjustment to the leadership role. God made a smooth transition for these men, who would now aid Moses in the day-to-day work of leading and guiding the people. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament comments about the 70:

“Moses makes a selection and subordinates the 70 to himself as bearers of portions of his own spirit, thus VALIDATING THEM AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BEARERS OF AN OFFICE…it is another version of Exodus 18:13ff, where on the advice of Jethro suitable men are appointed as heads (sarim) of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens and also as judges in minor cases…the point of Numbers 11:16ff, 24ff…is to tell of the APPOINTMENT OF OFFICE-BEARERS…the EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH COULD ALSO TURN SOMETIMES TO THIS PASSAGE AT THE INSTITUTION OF PRESBYTERS (see Church Order of Hippolytus, 32.2 and Didaskali Apostolorum II)” (656).

In the Book of Deuteronomy, we find a great number of references to the “gerousia,” such as Deuteronomy 5:23, where God tells that “the heads of your tribes and your elders (gerousia)” came to the burning mountain before God to renew their covenant with Him.

The gerousia served in Deuteronomy as the judicial leaders, those in charge of administration of the law among God’s people. Consider the following examples:

(a) Deuteronomy 25:7—“but if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders (gerousia) and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel…’” (NASB)

(b) Deuteronomy 27:1—“Then Moses and the elders (gerousia) of Israel charged the people, saying, ‘Keep all the commandments which I command you today.’” (NASB)

Aside from these examples, though, lie the references to the general leadership group of elders (presbuteroi) that also appear in a place of prominence in Deuteronomy:

(a) Deuteronomy 31:28—“ ‘Assemble to me all the elders (presbuterous) of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them.’” (NASB)

Notice in the section in which verse 28 is placed, Joshua is also commissioned (31:23) and the Levites are instructed—“Take this book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God that it may remain there as a witness against you” (v.26). It is apparent, then, that the general group of elders were in a prominent place, one honored as a place of leadership among God’s people. Being old, then, or elderly, was not just a condition of old age—with it, came prominence and honor, and tasks of leadership.

In the Book of Joshua, we see “presbuterous” or “presbuteroi,” the general terms for “elders,” come back to the forefront.

(a) Joshua 24:1 (NASB)—“Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders (presbuterous) of Israel and for their heads and their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God.”

Here, when Joshua is addressing the entire nation of Israel, he calls for the heads of the tribes as well as the other leaders, included among them the elders.

In the Book of Judges:

(a) Judges 21:16 (NASB)—“Then the elders of the congregation said, ‘What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?”
The word for “elders” here in the Greek is “presbuteroi.” Notice the context of Judges 21 involves a decision regarding the one tribe, Benjamin, that has been nearly wiped out due to war. The phrase “elders of the congregation” is translated in the Septuagint (LXX) as “hoi presbuteroi teis sunagogeis”. The word for congregation here is “sunagogeis,” from which we get the English word “synagogue.” This word “synagogue” tells us then that these elders are the religious leaders of the assembly. And, as Judges 21 shows, the elders were left to make the decision about the tribe of Benjamin.

There are countless other examples of Jewish elders in the nation and their leading role. However, we must tackle the issue of how the “old” in age complicates the issue of “elder” in the Old Testament.

There are instances where “presbuteros” is used not to denote leadership but old age:

(a) Genesis 43:27 (NASB)—“And he [Joseph] inquired about their welfare and said, ‘Is your father well, the old man (presbuteros) of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?”

(b) Genesis 44:20—“And we said to my lord, ‘We have a father, an old man (presbuteros), and a young brother…”

(c) 2 Chronicles 36:17—“Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man (presbuteros) or aged.”

(d) Job 42:17—“And Job died, an old man (presbuteros), and full of days.”

These passages are the only ones I’ve found so far that refer to an “old man.” But, make no mistake: there was honor with old age in the Israelite assembly, and God required that those old in age be honored for their age. Leviticus 19:32 (NASB) states:

“You shall stand up before the gray head and HONOR THE FACE OF AN OLD MAN…”

The word here for “old man” is “presbuterou,” from the parent word “presbuteros.” Regardless of whether translations are right or wrong, it seems, then, that those who bore the title “presbuteros” were those of prominence among God’s people. They were not just old men who were to be provided for, but men who were respected, men who had tasks to perform and people to oversee.

The evidence regarding old age gets even better. 1 Kings 12 gives us insight regarding the prominence of elderly men. The context concerns King Rehoboam, son of former King Solomon, who is now ruler over the people. Some of the people come to Rehoboam with grievances, and a request that he not rule with an iron fist as did his father.

1 Kings 12:6 states, “King Rehoboam consulted with the elders (tois presbuterois) who had served his father Solomon while he was still alive, saying, ‘How do you COUNSEL me to answer this people?”

As I stated in my post on 1 Peter 5, the word “elder” could mean “old” and “overseer” at the same time. 1 Kings 12 seems to demonstrate this as well. The word here is “presbuterois” from “presbuteros,” but in this case, it seems that the elders are counselors to the king. These elders seem to be royal assistants, those today that we would say served on a cabinet of a royal or national official.

But, read a little further in 1 Kings 12, and you’ll find that these men are not just in a place of prominence:

“But he forsook the counsel of the elders (ton presbuteron) which they had given him, and consulted with the young men (ton paidarion) who grew up with him and served him” (1 Kings 12:8, NASB).

The “elders” of 1 Kings 12:6 are contrasted with the young men of verse 8. So, here, these elders are “old” men—but they are also in a position of power, for, they served as King Solomon’s advisors, and then as Rehoboam’s. As I stated earlier, being old was not just chalked up to age—it came with leadership tasks. For those who desire to look this up in the Septuagint, you will have to turn to “REGNORUM III, 12:6” in the Septuagint (LXX).

I have one more passage that involves the “old” man: Isaiah 9:14-15:

“14So the LORD cuts off (AF)head and tail from Israel,Both palm branch and bulrush (AG)in a single day. 15The head is (AH)the elder and honorable man,And the prophet who teaches (AI)falsehood is the tail. 16(AJ)For those who guide this people are leading them astray;And those who are guided by them are brought to confusion.”

The context involves leadership, for verse 16 refers to “those who guide” God’s people. Who are the leaders of this people? The folks of verses 14 and 15: the elder and the prophet. The word for elder here, surprisingly, is “presbutein,” but, yet and still, the “old” man is labeled “honorable” and is called “the head.” I think it’s fascinating that the “old man” could be the leader of the nation, above even the prophet! In addition, the word for “old man” here is similar to the word for “older” men in Titus 2!

With 1 Kings 12 and Isaiah 9, we see that being old came with honor and position. Being old was more than something to be pitied—it was something to be admired, hoped for, waited for, something to look forward to. Proverbs 20:29 states, “the glory of young men is their strength, and the HONOR OF OLD MEN IS THEIR GRAY HAIR” (NASB).

Now, I have made the case that with old age came honor. And, there is some ambiguity used with the term “presbuteros” in the Old Testament to denote leaders and old men. But there is a way of cutting through the “red tape”—and the Old Testament provides this “way of escape” for us. How? Through the use of two passages: Isaiah 3:1-5 and Lamentations 5:12-14.

(1) Isaiah 3:1-5 (NASB)—“ 1For behold, the Lord GOD of hosts (A)is going to remove from Jerusalem and JudahBoth supply and support, the whole supply of breadAnd the whole supply of water; 2(B)The mighty man and the warrior,The judge and the prophet,The diviner and the elder, 3The captain of fifty and the honorable man,The counselor and the expert artisan,And the skillful enchanter. 4And I will make mere (C)lads their princes,And capricious children will rule over them, 5And the people will be (D)oppressed,Each one by another, and each one by his (E)neighbor;The youth will storm against the elderAnd the inferior against the honorable.”

Looking at Isaiah 3: 1-5, we see that the “elder” of v. 2 is mentioned along with the soldier, warrior, judge, prophet, diviner, captain, honored man, counselor, and skilled craftsman (vv. 2-3). Surely then, the elder mentioned here is part of the leadership, so the Septuagint uses the word “presbuteron” from “presbuteros.” But, if you look closer, you’ll notice that there is another “elder” mentioned in the same passage in verse 5. The word used here, however, is not
“presbuteros” but, instead, “presbutein.”

Why is “presbutein” used in this passage? Because the word means “old,” in contrast to the “youth” (paidion) of verse 5. In verse 5, age clearly has a role to play; but in verse 2, the “elder” seems to be one in a prominent position, a place of leadership.

Lamentations 5:12-14 is the other major passage that helps us break through the “impasse” of the word “elder” (presbuteros and presbuteis):

12Princes were hung by their hands;(N)Elders were not respected. 13Young men (O)worked at the grinding mill,And youths (P)stumbled under loads of wood. 14Elders are gone from the gate,Young men from their (Q)music.

The context of Lamentations 5 involves the overthrowing of leadership: “slaves rule over us” (v.8), princes were killed (v. 12), and “elders” are no longer given the honor they once held. The word for “elders” in verse 12 is “presbuteroi.” Since “presbuteroi” is placed beside “princes,” we can infer that the reference made is to leadership. However, there is another reference to “elders” in verse 14, and this reference is placed alongside “young men.” The word for “elders” here in verse 14 is “presbutai,” which refers in all its context to an “elderly” man (Titus 2:2). The word for “old” man in Titus 2:2 is “presbuteis.”

As we’ve seen in the Old Testament, the title “elder” came with honor, prestige, and position. There is one thing we didn’t cover, however—and that is the word for “old women.” I will cover this in a future post.

Romans 16:2-- Phoebe as "Prostatis"

EGALITARIAN CLAIM 7.1: PHOEBE AS LEADER: ROMANS 16:2 SAYS THAT PHOEBE WAS A “LEADER” OR “RULER” OF MANY PEOPLE< AND EVEN OF PAUL HIMSELF (pg. 220).

The egalitarian claim here in 7.1 addresses Paul’s use of the Greek word “prostatis” in Romans 16:2 to describe Phoebe. According to the egalitarian claim, the word means “ruler.” In opposition to this, Grudem writes:

“The two most recent Greek lexicons do not give the meaning ‘leader’ for ‘prostatis’…The BDAG lexicon defines it as ‘ woman in a supportive role, patron, benefactor’ (885), and similarly defines the related masculine noun ‘prostates’ as ‘one who looks out for the interest of others, defender, guardian, benefactor’ (885)” (222).

Grudem writes more, but I think this is enough for us to see the point. The definitions from the BDAG lexicon are already flawed, seeing that the woman’s role here is “in a supportive role,” while the man “looks out for the interest of others” and is “defender” and “guardian.” The woman in the role of “prostatis” is just as much a defender or guardian of someone else’s interests as is the male, the “prostates.”

I spent about two hours looking for references to a “ruler” as a “prostatis” in the Septuagint, and I found nothing. Nevertheless, the word “prostatis” is nothing to snuff at—it is an important title and was clearly used in the LXX (Septuagint) to refer to a royal assistant. Let’s look at a few examples:

In 1 Chronicles 27:31, we find the word “prostatai” in the Septuagint, referring to “stewards of King David’s property” (ESV). These assistants who oversaw the King’s property are included in a list that first starts with the leaders of tribes: Eliezer for the Reubenites, Shephatiah for the Simeonites, Zadok for the Aaronites, etc (vv.16-17). These stewards were special men the king viewed trustworthy.

Our next example comes from 1 Chronicles 29:6. Here, the word “prostatai” refers to “officers.” These men are placed among King David’s leaders: “Then the LEADERS of fathers’ houses made their freewill offerings, as did also the LEADERS of the tribes, the COMMANDERS of thousands and of hundreds, and the OFFICERS over the king’s work.” Once again, the “prostatai” are mentioned among the top men of the nation of Israel.

Then, we have references from 2 Chronicles 8: 10 and 24:11. In 2 Chronicles 8:10, the word “prostaton” is used, referring to officers: “And these were the CHIEF OFFICERS of King Solomon…” The “prostaton” here were not just officers, but CHIEF, the TOP officers, the RULING officers of the people. And, it gets even better. The ESV translates the last part of this verse for us: “the CHIEF officers of King Solomon, 250, who EXERCISED AUTHORITY over the people.” These men were not only the king’s top officers—they even held power over the people! If Phoebe was a “prostatis,” then, according to the Septuagint, she was quite a powerful woman. In addition, she was not only a “prostatis,” but also a “diakonos” of the church at Cenchrea. In Paul’s eyes, she held quite a bit of authority, for Paul tells the church at Rome, “help her in whatever she may need from you…” Whatever Phoebe asked for, Phoebe was to receive. And Paul commending her to the church gave her that much more prestige and honor! In 2 Chronicles 24:11, the “prostatas” were in charge of collecting the Mosaic tax “that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness…whenever the chest was brought to the king’s officers by the Levites, when they saw that there was much money in it, the king’s secretary and the officer of the chief priest would come and empty the chest and take it and return it to its place” (2 Chronicles 24:10, 11). Here, the officers (prostatas) were those who oversaw the collection of the royal tax on the nation, a tax established by Moses.

There are other references to “prostatis” in the Septuagint—and I will cover those another time. For now, though, it is safe to conclude that Phoebe was not just an ordinary helper—she was a woman of importance, a trusted worker of Paul’s, an assistant of his, a woman of prominence in the church at Cenchrea—and now, thanks to Paul, at Rome as well.

Husbands and Wives

EGALITARIAN CLAIM 8.4: RESTRICED TO HUSBANDS AND WIVES: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 APPLIES ONLY TO HUSBANDS AND WIVES, MEANING ESSENTIALLY, "I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER HER HUSBAND."

This is a widely-held scholarly view among some scholars. Grudem, however, believes that this is not in view: “….the view that 1 Timothy 2:12 talks about a ‘wife’ and a ‘husband’ is not persuasive because all the other New Testament passages that use these words for husbands and wives have different contexts and different wording, and this context and this wording in 1 Timothy 2 contain several factors indicating that men and women generally are in view” (299).
Grudem claims that there are “several factors indicating that men and women generally are in view,” but he doesn’t give any evidence of these factors. He simply writes, “Should not single men pray without anger or quarreling? Should not single women dress modestly?” (298)
This serves as Grudem’s evidence for the idea that this passage would have referred to all women in general. But is this really so? What about Paul’s words where he says, “but she will be saved THROUGH CHILDBEARING” (v.15)?

Notice also throughout the Pastorals that Paul seems to be concerned with marriage and the managing of households. In 1 Timothy 2 he refers to “saved through childbearing” (v.15, English Standard Version); an overseer should be “the husband of one wife” (3:2) and should “MANAGE HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD WELL” (3:4). Paul’s emphasis on the household is apparent when he writes, “for if someone does not know HOW TO MANAGE HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD, how will he care for God’s church?” (3:6) For deacons, they must be “the husband of one wife, MANAGING THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR OWN HOUSEHOLDS WELL” (3:12).

In chapter 5, Paul writes about the widows that “if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to THEIR OWN HOUSEHOLD and to make some return to their parents (5:4). Paul labels an infidel as one who “does not provide for his relatives, and ESPECIALLY FOR THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD” (5:8). Regarding younger widows, Paul desires that “younger widows marry, bear children, MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS” (5:14). Last but not least, Paul refers to the church as “the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD” (4:15).

Paul does not seem to be concerned here about single women who are out of control, but women who are part of households. Paul’s requirement of women deacons to be “faithful in all things” (3:11) may very well be a way of reminding the married women of the church to be faithful to their households.

Finally, to finish out Paul’s emphasis in the Pastorals, I’ll quote some from Paul’s letter to Titus, chapter 2:

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the younger women TO LOVE THEIR HUSBANDS AND CHILDREN, to be self-controlled, pure, WORKING AT HOME, kind, and SUBMISSIVE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD MAY NOT BE REVILED” (Titus 2:3-5, ESV).

It seems that in Paul’s letters, he was concerned with the situations prevalent in households. After all, how one managed his or her household and children decided whether or not one could care for the “house” of God.

However, there is one more interesting piece of proof that may shed light on the “woman” of 1 Timothy 2. In verse 11 where Paul writes, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness,” the word for “woman” here in the Greek is “gune” (goo-nay)—which is the generic term for any woman. However, in verse 12, Paul refers to “a woman” with the Greek word “gunaiki,” which, in some cases, can refer to a wife (comes from the Greek word “gunaikos”). When Paul refers to Eve in the third person, he says, “The woman,” and he uses the word “gune” (goo-nay). The interesting thing about this is that Eve was a “wife” in Genesis when she sinned.

The only other times when Paul refers to “authority” between a man and a woman (mentioning both genders) is when he is referring to a husband/wife relationship. Another good example is 1 Corinthians 11, where he refers to wives wearing “a sign of authority” (1 Corinthians 11:10). Only married women wore a veil, a head covering, as a public sign of marriage (equivalent to married women wearing their wedding band today).

Elders Simultaneous?

I stated in last night’s post that the word “elder” (presbuteros) can mean either an elderly person or an office-holder in the church (overseer). I showed two verses of Scripture where the word “presbuteros” can mean both in two different contexts. With 1 Timothy 5, I mentioned that some scholars believe the word “presbuteros” refers to more than just an elderly person in the church—but instead, an overseer, of the church. What does 1 Timothy 5:1-2 really say? Are the “elder man” and “elder women” in this passage referring to elders in the church? Or are they referring to simply old men and women in the congregation?

To answer this question, let’s look at a passage involving elders, such as 1 Peter 5:
1So I exhort the elders among you,(A) as a fellow elder and(B) a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2(C) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a](D) not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b](E) not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not(F) domineering over those in your charge, but(G) being examples to the flock. 4And when(H) the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the(I) unfading(J) crown of glory. 5Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.(K) Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for(L) "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Notice that Peter refers to himself as “a fellow elder.” Here, it seems that Peter is using this to refer to the office of elder in the church. He is a fellow overseer in the church, writing to other overseers in the churches scattered in the Jewish Diaspora. Next, he encourages these elders to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you.” This tells us that the audience of this chapter is the eldership, for they have a flock of God to shepherd, to watch over. The place of prominence in the church is indicated with the words “exercising oversight” and “not domineering over those in your charge.”

However, a problem comes in when we encounter the words of verse 5: “Likewise, you who are younger, BE SUBJECT TO THE ELDERS.”

Wait a minute! The common thought is that Peter here is referring to overseers in the churches, right? Yes—BUT, with the words of verse 5, we see that age clearly has a role to play in Peter’s letter. The overseers of the congregation are not only officeholders, but also advanced in age.
This will come to play in the passage of 1 Timothy 5:1-2 because the contextual evidence points to the view of “elders simultaneous”—that is, that not only are the men and women advanced in age, but also overseers in the church. If 1 Peter 5, which involves instructions concerning the office and age, can have the two ideas of “elder” to coexist, who’s to say that 1 Timothy 5:1-2 cannot present to the student of Scripture the same situation?

Biblical Eldership: Starting With the Confusion

I realize that this post title is probably gonna turn some folks off. I mean, who wants to tackle the confusing things in life? Life is already confusing enough, so why add to the mass puzzle of chaos?

However, I have to. Studying Scripture and what it has to say about men and women in ministry is no easy subject. There’s a lot of interpretation and word study that must occur in this process. If we don’t study the confusing as well as the simple, someone will read this post and get a half-hearted idea about women in ministry. Don’t worry: God HAS called women and CONTINUES to do so—but we need to see that God’s Word tells us that, and that the writers of Scripture received that revelation—that the Gospel breaks through all barriers, including that of gender.

Now, let’s get to it: when studying what Scripture has to say about Biblical Eldership, there is an ambiguous term that seems to creep up—that is, the word “presbuteros,” which can mean either an “old” person or someone who serves as a presbyter, an elder in the church, one who teaches and preaches. To show you a quick example, take the following:

1 Timothy 5:1-2 (English Standard Version)—“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.”

The words for “older” man and woman are “presbutero” and “presbuteras,” which stem from the word “presbuteros.” Here in the immediate context, it seems that they refer to “old” people, since Timothy is told to treat them like he would his “father and mother.” However, some would say that there is evidence that what seems to be “older” men and women here is really something more. What would you say if I told you that?

Not surprisingly, however, there are cases where the word “presbuteros” clearly refers to an old person. Take for example, Leviticus 19:32—

“You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.”

The word here in Leviticus 19:32 for “old man” (in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) is “presbuteros” (presbuterou).

Most people believe that 1 Timothy 5 refers to old men and women. What do I believe? Well, to add to the confusion, you’ll just have to keep reading :-)

Jesus, Our Only Mediator

I will now start to attack the gender biases and presuppositions surrounding 1 Timothy 2. To start off, I’d like to attack a presupposition common among evangelicals who tend to disagree with the idea of women pastors, elders, or deacons in the body of Christ. Grudem says it best in his book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 167 (Answer 5.4C):

“Some complementarians argue that Christ’s maleness shows that all pastors should be male as representatives of Christ. But all complementarians see CHRIST’S MALENESS AS INDICATING A PATTERN OF MALE LEADERSHIP AMONG GOD’S PEOPLE.”

Grudem’s view, and the view of all complementarians, is that, because Christ is male, all of those who represent Him (as “shepherds,” He being “The Good Shepherd,” John 10) should be male. All pastors should be men, no exceptions!

I picked up an old commentary of mine last night and thumbed to the section on 1 Timothy 2 to see if I could get some background information on Ephesus. I didn’t get any (not a surprise), but this is what I did get (commentary on 1 Timothy 2):

“The teaching of the Scriptures is more appropriate to THE MALE’S FUNCTION IN THE CHURCH AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND PEOPLE because it involves interpreting God’s Word to the church as an authority figure” (New Testament Survey. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pg. 465).

Did you catch that? The modern-day Pastor is “a mediator between God and people,” making it necessary for the pastor to be a man. But notice that Paul mentions nothing of the sort—being male like Christ is not a requirement for the bishop of 1 Tim. 3. Second, what gets me the most about this line of argument is that, by making the “male” leader the “mediator,” we are suddenly turning Roman Catholic (as though we need a priest), or even heretical (as though we need a current mediator)! Grudem (and most complementarians) have not actually read 1 Timothy 2! In this beloved passage they quote so much and write so much about, surely they’ve read 1 Tim. 2:5—“For there is one God, and there is ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS…” (ESV).

There is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR—and He is Christ Jesus! There is no other mediator that can stand in His place, or needs to. When He paid our debt on the Cross, He paid it IN FULL! There is no balance remaining, no debt yet to be paid. All debt has been paid, we are free in Him, and He has purchased His people back with His own blood.

The modern-day Pastor is a shepherd for the people, but nothing more: like the priests of the Old Testament, even today’s pastor can’t take away the sins of the people.
Hebrews 7:23-25 (NASB) reads, “ 23The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing,
24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues (A)forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
25Therefore He is able also to (B)save forever those who (C)draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to (D)make intercession for them.

Because Christ has already paid our debt for us, there is no need for another mediator. The language of the New Testament concurs with Christ’s mediatorial role, as Peter wrote to the elders of the churches scattered abroad:

“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, SHEPHERD THE FLOCK of God that is among you…” (1 Peter 5:1-2). Notice that Peter does not tell the elders to “mediate” the flock. Only Christ can adequately stand between mankind and God Almighty. The shepherds, however, are to be like their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in one thing: they are to be “shepherds” of the flock, as Jesus is the Good Shepherd, who gives His life for the sheep (John 10).

I will leave you, the reader, with these words, as they comfort me when I think about God’s service and the work of the ministry:

“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; NOT DOMINEERING OVER THOSE IN YOUR CHARGE, but BEING EXAMPLES TO THE FLOCK. AND WHEN THE CHIEF SHEPHERD APPEARS, YOU WILL RECEIVE THE UNFADING CROWN OF GLORY” (1 Pet. 5:2-4, ESV).

Gifts and Roles

Not too long ago I wrote a post regarding Ann Graham Lotz and her rejection at a Pastor’s meeting by pastors who didn’t want to hear her message to them (based on their 1 Timothy 2 bias). And that got me to thinking that, in accordance with 1 Timothy 2, so many believers have a presupposition that gifts are tied to gender, that, if you’re a man you have access to all the gifts (no restrictions), but if you’re a woman, you can’t be a pastor, teacher, elder, deacon (?), and so forth. And I will approach the 1 Timothy 2 bias in our discussion of the passage as well as all three of the Pastoral Epistles soon. For now, I am going to spend time examining what Scripture has to say about the gifts and how they are given. How are the gifts distributed? What makes one person eligible for a gift and another ineligible? What criteria does God assess in a person that gives them “dibs” on a gift (if any)?

There are three passages that approach the subject of spiritual gifts and their distribution: Romans 12:3-8, Ephesians 4:1-16, and 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. We will examine each of these passages now.
What does Romans 12 tell us about the gifts and their distribution? Paul sets up an analogy to help us see how the “body” of Christ works by comparing the workings of the church to the physical body: “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function…” In order for a body to function, to have its many needs met, there must be many members. It makes sense, that, the foot can’t do what the liver can do, or the lung can’t do what the eyes can do. What good would it do if we had 12 body parts that all did the same thing and didn’t do anything different? All the other physical needs of the body would go neglected.

But Romans 12:6 answers the question about how gifts are distributed—“Having gifts that differ ACCORDING TO THE GRACE GIVEN TO US, let us use them…” First, Paul states that we have gifts; God has given gifts to His church. Next, they are gifts THAT DIFFER! Everyone does not receive the same gift(s). Last but not least, the gifts are given to us based on the amount of grace God dispenses to each individual. Paul doesn’t write here that gifts are dispensed based on gender. Your gender doesn’t mark you for some gifts or make you ineligible for them; it’s all based on God’s grace, how God chooses to favor you or not.

Ephesians 4 is another passage on the gifts God has given His church. Ephesians 4:7 answers the question above regarding how gifts are distributed: “But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” Each of us is given a measure of grace, but we are not all given the same AMOUNT of grace! Why aren’t we given the same amount? Because, based on where the Lord chooses to place us in His body, we don’t all need the same amount of grace to do different tasks! Christ’s gifts to the church are measures of grace, and He gives them however he sees fit. Verse 11 shows what kinds of grace gifts Christ has given His church: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers…”

Look at the last passage, 1 Corinthians 12. After Paul lists the gifts, services, and activities in the body of Christ, he writes, “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Cor. 12:11). How are the gifts distributed to believers? As the Spirit wills, as the Holy Spirit decides to give them.

I think I should give an example here: let’s say that a person gets five potential job offers, all offering great pay, great benefits, and a sufficient amount of vacation time. The person is overwhelmed with choices, but doesn’t want to be pushed regarding which job he will pick. His response? “Let me alone, I wanna decide this one on my own.” If he should say that the choice should be left up to him, then that’s what I must do—leave the choice up to him. In so doing, though, I can’t be sure that he’s gonna pick the job I want him to. He MIGHT pick the job, but he MIGHT pick the other four jobs as well.

The Holy Spirit is the one who gives the gifts—but He gives them AS HE WILLS! The decision of who gets what gift is left up to the Spirit to decide. And I cannot be sure that in EVERY case, with EVERY person, that a man will always get the gift of preaching, for example, and a woman will NEVER receive it. Take pastoring as another example: pastoring is called a gift in Ephesians 4. The Spirit gives pastoring to those in the body of Christ He desires have it. Therefore, how can I be sure that in every case, a woman will NEVER receive the gift of pastoring? I can’t be. Why? Because the choice is His—not mine; and I can’t know the mind of God.

As we have seen, giftedness in the body of Christ determines the role a person plays, not their gender, age, strength, IQ, SAT score, or anything else. And giftedness is not based on the gender of man but the grace of God. When Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem, the angels proclaimed, “Glory to God in the highest! And on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14, NIV). Because the Lord’s favor rests on all those who accept the atoning sacrifice of His Son Jesus, all are on equal footing regarding eligibility of the gifts. And the one thing that makes one person receive a gift (and another to receive another gift) is the decision of the Spirit, not the decision of man based on gender.

I leave you, my reader, with the following verses from the prophet Isaiah:
8"For My thoughts are not (X)your thoughts,Nor are (Y)your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For (Z)as the heavens are higher than the earth,So are My ways higher than your waysAnd My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

God is not a predictable God whose ways can be discerned every time. God is an unpredictable God who works things out in the way that is most pleasing to Him. Humans can’t figure out God’s every move; and with the issue of women in ministry, humans, once again, can’t truly know God’s every decision. There may be fewer women than men out there in pulpits across America, but believe me, women will be there. And why? Because that’s God’s choice. And not one male Pastor in the world is any more entitled to God’s pulpit than a woman Pastor. And not one male servant of the Lord is any more entitled to God's service than any female servant is.

Martha and Mary II

I left off my analysis of Luke’s reversal theme at the end of Luke 7 with the sinful woman who anoints Jesus’ feet. So I will continue this analysis now with Luke 8 through Luke 10, the chapter involving our passage of Martha and Mary. As I stated last time, I am assessing Luke’s reversal theme throughout the Gospel so I can put the story of Martha and Mary into proper perspective.

At the start of chapter 8, Luke records the names of women who are following Jesus (in addition to the Twelve Jesus handpicked to follow Him).
Another piece of evidence for Luke’s reversal theme can be found in verses 19-21. Here Luke reverses the meaning of family:
“Then his [Jesus] mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.’ But he answered them, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’”

Here Jesus is told that His family is outside waiting to see Him, and He responds with a reversal in the public’s idea of family: family does not consist necessarily of blood relatives, but those who do the will of His Father. This surely would have been a “slap in the face” to Jesus’ own earthly family. Even today, Jesus’ comment would have been considered disrespectful. Families today, as I imagine they did in the lifetime of Christ, were very tight-knit and prided themselves on being so. Families today do the same.

When I was a child, my mother and family always told my twin sister and I to stick together at school. We were never to laugh at each other in someone else’s face; instead, when one of us was laughed at, the other was to come to our aid. We were never to fight each other in public, or call each other names, or make the other cry. And no matter how much we disagreed with the other, in public, we were “on the same team.” That is the way it was throughout my entire childhood. And the reason? As my grandmother always said, “Blood is thicker than water.” No matter how close a non-relative could be, a relative could (and in most cases, would) always be closer.
But for my family, as for many families, as for the hearers of Jesus day, His response would have come as a sheer shock to those around Him—for He was redefining what a “family” is. In Jesus’ day (as well as my own), “blood was thicker than water”—but Jesus was actually asserting that there was something THICKER than family, the family unit. Jesus actually dared to assert the notion that there was a stronger unit than the human family—the family of God!

In chapter 9, we see another social reversal involving children:
“An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great” (9:46-48).

Notice that the disciples are getting into a heated debate about who is the greatest amongst themselves. There is no child involved, just the Twelve disciples. But how does Jesus respond? He takes a child, sits the child in front of them, and claims that the child is an example of greatness (the least of those involved).

When we arrive at chapter 10, we see that Jesus sends 72 followers of His (minus the Twelve) to go and proclaim the kingdom among the house of Israel. In verse 17, the 72 returned to Jesus, exclaiming, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Of all the work that excited them most, it was seeing the demons tremble and shudder at the name of Jesus. They were ecstatic about what they could do to the demons. But Jesus “nudged” them back to reality with the words, “Do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Lk. 10:20, ESV). While the power was a good thing (it was destroying Satan’s kingdom), what was more important is that they have a heavenly citizenship and eternal life awaiting them. To be able to cast out demons in Christ’s Name (Matthew 7:22), but bear no fruit of repentance, would profit nothing.

In verse 21, Christ praises the Father: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the WISE and UNDERSTANDING and revealed them to LITTLE CHILDREN; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” In verse 23, Jesus tells the disciples, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you are, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” The Father Himself has done a reversal of knowledge, as those considered to be “little children,” or infants, are “in the know” of God’s plan, while those who are “in the know” in society are ignorant of God’s workings. The reference to “prophets and kings” in verse 24 represents the power group of society, those in leadership, those who served in positions of prominence. Yet, God chose to give healing authority to these lowly 72 disciples, everyday people who chose to follow Christ. Christ truly gave power to the POWERLESS!!

In verses 25-37, Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan to show a lawyer who his neighbor was (per the lawyer’s request). Notice that the story involves Jewish ruling authority—the priest and a Levite. Priests and Levites served in the tabernacle and were considered to be the religious rulers among God’s people. However, in Jesus’ story, neither of these religious rulers stopped to help the man who had been beaten by robbers. These religious rulers seemed quite unconcerned about the man’s condition (and these were rulers who should have been showing love to the man, who was in need—they were supposed to be representing a God of love and mercy who helps those in need!). Who helps the hurt man? A Samaritan, a representative of an outcast group in Jesus’ day. Samaritans were half-Jewish and half-Gentile, and were considered to be unworthy of association (were known as half-breeds). Samaria was the home of the Samaritans, and no Jew ever visited Samaria. Jesus’ visit there in John 4 and His subsequent discussion with the Samaritan woman stunned His disciples. Jesus makes the Samaritan the example to follow, something that would have been an affront to a Pharisee. Once again, Jesus reverses social expectations—the priest, Levite, or even the Pharisee would have been the Jewish religious example to look to, but, instead, a Samaritan, a disliked opponent of the Jews, was made the godly example.

And this brings us up to the famous passage in question: Luke 10:38-42. In this passage, we have Martha, busy at work trying to be a good hostess, while Mary, Martha’s sister, is sitting at Christ’s feet, listening to Him. Martha tells Jesus to reinforce her command and tell Mary to help her; but Jesus does the reverse—He tells Martha that instead of Mary following her, she should be following Mary—listening to His teaching.

This passage is important when we consider that Luke’s Gospel is a social commentary on the social conditions of his day. Here, he is pairing up two things—the domestic service with the discipleship service. Martha chooses the domestic, the housework, and scolds Mary for not doing the same; but Jesus vindicates Mary and says that she chose “the good portion,” the one NECESSARY thing! Martha was doing a good thing by serving, but it wasn’t NECESSARY or needed.

Jesus overturns a social convention here, the idea that women were meant to be only in the kitchen serving food and being good hostesses. There was a set importance to being a good hostess, but there were other things that were more important, like listening to the teaching of Christ (being a disciple).

Let’s read Aida Spencer’s answer (as Wayne Grudem records it) in Grudem’s book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 162:
“Jesus has completely reversed the priorities and the consequences of those priorities in Jewish life. Not only does Jesus not think women are exempt from learning the Torah, but also they do BEST to learn God’s law…in choosing between a woman’s role in homemaking and a woman’s role in education, which Mary and Martha represent…Jesus has concluded that a woman’s role as homemaker is NOT primary...”

I agree with Aida Spencer’s words here. Martha was distracted with being a good hostess, which was the social expectation; but Jesus was concerned with Martha being a good disciple, which, in the eyes of the Savior, was the best state to aspire to. Notice that Jesus calls Mary’s “pupil stance” as the only “necessary” thing. Being a good hostess is optional—but being a good disciple is MANDATORY. Christ demands that we be excellent disciples of His, but whether or not our homes stay entirely immaculate most of the time is another thing entirely (not something in and of itself that plays a great role in our spiritual lives). According to Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, “The picture of a woman in the disciple’s position, at the feet of Jesus, would be STARTLING in a culture where women did not receive formal teaching from a rabbi” (1037, caps mine). Women weren’t taught from the rabbis, didn’t receive instruction in the Torah, because they were told they wouldn’t need it. They weren’t to teach, to instruct anyone in anything, so what did they need to learn the law for? Learning, in and of itself, was pointless…UNLESS you were going to teach. So women, never being able to teach, would have no need to learn. But here, in Luke 10, we see Jesus commending Mary for her desire to learn more of God’s law, and His instructing Martha to follow Mary’s example. Surely, then, there was some importance to learning—but, at the heart of Luke’s Gospel, there was some importance to WOMEN learning.

Let me say two things to conclude the discussion on Mary and Martha, at least for the immediate future. First, there is the idea that Jesus encouraged these women to learn. It is very likely that Martha and Mary were both single women (we have no proof that they were married). So, in their day, whether a woman was married or not, her ASSIGNED role from birth was to be a homemaker. With Jesus’ encouragement to learn, these two women found that they had an option with regard to lifestyle activity. They could now be disciples of Christ and choose to follow Him (as did the women of Luke 8). They were not married, so they could be totally devoted to the Lord.

Next, this has bearing on Wayne Grudem’s favorite passage that we will come to discuss on the blog soon—1 Timothy 2. Many have interpreted 1 Timothy 2 for every woman, whether married or single. However, Wayne Grudem and other complementarians are wrong about this, because the passage specifically mentions “childbearing,” and the rest of the epistle discusses young married wives “keeping house” (chapt. 5), so the passage refers to only married women.

To support Luke 10:38-42, and make sense of 1 Timothy 2, we have the words of the Apostle Paul:
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order, and TO SECURE YOUR UNDIVIDED DEVOTION TO THE LORD” (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

For the unmarried woman, she need only be concerned with pleasing the Lord. If she is a good homemaker, and loves the domestic arena, that’s great—but she is not BOUND to be a homemaker or BOUND out of necessity to care for the home. I think that Jesus told Martha that her only necessary thing was to listen to His teaching because she was unmarried and had no need of a divided devotion. Maintaining her singleness, she could be totally dedicated to the Lord and His service. And it would pay for all single women to do the same as Mary—sit at His feet, learn His Word, and be ready for whatever great task He may commission you to perform.

Martha and Mary: Luke's Social Concerns

“EGALITARIAN CLAIM 5.2: JESUS AND MARY: WHEN JESUS PRAISED MARY AND CORRECTED MARTHA (LUKE 10:38-42), HE OVERTURNED THE EXPECTATIONS THAT A PATRIARCHAL CULTURE PLACED ON WOMEN” (161).

Grudem’s response to this egalitarian claim is the following: “Jesus overturned some expectations, but the text does not say He overturned all expectations…I am thankful that Jesus taught women and conversed openly with them about theological questions (as in John 4)…but that does not mean that Jesus overturned all Jewish beliefs and customs about the roles of women and men!” (162)

The following response by Wayne Grudem does one major thing: it assumes that there are “roles of women and men.” Grudem’s response fails to address the story of Mary and Martha. In addition, it also fails to consider the theme that runs throughout Luke’s Gospel. I will first address the theme throughout Luke’s Gospel, and then we’ll conclude our study of the Gospel with the text in question (Luke 10:38-42).

All through Luke’s Gospel, there seems to be the theme of unexpected twists. In chapter 5, Jesus calls Matthew (known as Levi) to be His disciple. In verse 30, the Pharisees criticize Christ by saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” To the Pharisees, the elite of the day, the tax collectors and sinners were the “moral filth” of society, the people whom no one wanted to associate with. The Pharisees, claiming to be “the separated ones,” wanted to maintain their distance as far away from such immoral people as possible. But Jesus’ answer presents an unexpected twist to the Pharisaic train of thought: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:31-32, ESV). Jesus’ statement made it clear that the people the Pharisees wanted to shun and stay away from were the very people He came for. We see here that the Pharisees had a very averse train of thought from Christ—He came to heal the sick, not place them in a corner with a “stay away” sign.

From verses 33-39 of the same chapter, Jesus responds to the Pharisees on the issue of fasting. The Pharisees said, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink” (v.33). Jesus’ response? “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (v.34) Jesus tells the Pharisees that His disciples are eating and drinking because the current time is the proper time to do so, for “the bridegroom” (Himself) is with them, and they are the “wedding guests,” those who are to participate with Him. While Jesus is with them, they will celebrate His time on earth—but a time would come when He would be taken up from them, and, once gone, they would then fast (v.35). Jesus’ purpose for His response was to show the Pharisees that there is a proper time for fasting; and fasting is not to be done just for the sake of fasting. Fasting has a time and a purpose.

Luke 6 concerns the disciples picking grain out of the fields on the Sabbath. Once again the Pharisees come to criticize: “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (v.2) This time, Jesus was violating a law on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, it was against the Law to do any form of work—and picking grain out of the fields was constituted as work. Jesus has another twist up His sleeve: He throws the Law back on the Pharisees—“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (vv.3, 4) Since the Pharisees resorted to the Law to attack Jesus, He did the same to attack them. What is interesting about His reference to the Law is that He mentions David, who ate the bread of the Presence, the bread reserved ONLY for the priests! David and his men were no priests—but they ate the bread anyway! Jesus was showing them that if David could unlawfully eat of the bread of the Presence, and he was “lord” over a kingdom (lowercase, that is!), then, surely, Jesus Himself could do that which seemed unlawful on the Sabbath—He being Lord over the day itself.

In verses 6-11, Jesus confronts the Pharisees again about the Sabbath: “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (v.9) Jesus once again made it clear to the Pharisees that it was the spirit of the Law that they should have been upholding, not the letter—“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6, ESV).

In verses 20-26, Luke records his version of “The Beatitudes.” In contrast to Matthew’s, which mentions more of the heart and issues of the heart, Luke’s “Sermon” emphasizes social concerns: “Blessed are you who are poor…hungry…weep...” (vv.20, 21). However, what is interesting about Luke’s Sermon (in addition to his social slant) is that he declares blessings on those who are unfortunate, but doom on those who are fortunate—“Blessed are you who are poor,” but “woe to you who are rich”; “blessed are you who are hungry” but “woe to you who are full now”; “blessed are you who weep” but “woe to you who laugh now”. Luke’s Gospel, as I mentioned earlier, shows us unexpected twists at every turn. On every page of his Gospel, we see a reversal of fortunes, where those who are fortunate become those who are LESS fortunate; and those who are less fortunate become MORE fortunate.

Verses 36-50 of Luke 7 concern a sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. The woman is described as “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” (v.37). When she discovered that Jesus was sitting at the table of a Pharisee, she “bought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment” (v.38). This woman, what we would call “a woman of the night,” honors Jesus by wiping His feet with her tears and kissing His feet, not to mention anointing His feet. The Pharisee, who invited Jesus to his home, responds to the sinful woman’s actions: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (v.39). The Pharisee saw this woman as something immoral, dirty, filthy, not worth his time—and similarly, believed that if Jesus really was who He claimed to be, He would have had nothing to do with her as well. She was the corrupt of society, and Pharisees (or good people) stayed away from such “wicked” influences. Jesus addresses him, telling him a story and then going for the jugular: “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (vv.44-47).

In response to the woman’s reverence of Christ, Jesus forgives her of her sins. Jesus promotes her at the table—yes, she who had no seat at it! However, those who had seats at the table were not praised; instead, they were told to learn something from this “woman of the night,” a woman whom the Pharisee (Simon) believed Jesus should have made no time for.

I will continue my study of Luke’s “reversal theme” in the next post. Finally, I will tie Luke’s reversal theme in with the egalitarian claim as well as Grudem’s response to show why I disagree with Grudem’s conclusion.

"Prophecy and Biblical Authority"

While glancing through some articles online from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I stumbled upon an article called “Anne Graham Lotz and Women in Church Leadership” by Brent Nelson. The article, dated October 21, 2008, discussed how Anne Graham Lotz felt when pastors walked out on her in a seminary chapel service. Anne Graham Lotz told Brent Nelson at Washington Post that she was discouraged until she began to pray and the Lord revealed to her a passage of comfort—John 20, where Mary Magdalene was sent by the Lord to the disciples to tell them that He had risen. She also thought about Acts 2:17 where the prophet Joel is quoted and the reference from Joel 2:28 is brought to the surface—“ ‘And in the last days it shall be,’ God declares, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY…”

I was reading this portion of Anne Graham Lotz’s response to rejection by Brent Nelson, so I didn’t get all the details about her interview. Nevertheless, Nelson’s response to Lotz (on the CBMW site) is worth showing:
“Imprecision is the handmaid of confusion, and confusion the prelude to bondage (John 8:32). We would do well to make a distinction between women in ministry (which the Bible affirms) and women in the pastorate (which the Bible forbids - 1 Timothy 2:12). Mary seeing Jesus and being commissioned to tell the disciples of his rising is indeed an honor, but certainly does not qualify her to take the role of an Elder or Pastor to men. Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5), but prophesying is not a biblically authoritative act. Children, servants, even unbelievers can prophesy, therefore it must be tested against Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21).”

Did you notice something interesting about that quote? “Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy, but prophesying is NOT a BIBLICALLY-AUTHORITATIVE ACT.” What this says is that, while women can certainly prophesy in the church, they do not have any biblical authority because the gift of prophecy does not carry any spiritual authority with it.

Let’s look back at 1 Corinthians 11, the passage that Nelson references in his response to Anne Graham Lotz. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 concerns men and women prophesying. Now verse 5, pertaining to women, states, “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” (ESV). The English Standard Version translates “gunaikos” as “wife” because of later context (vv.7,8). Therefore, women should wear a head covering: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” A wife should have authority on her head (according to the text). But why? The text tells us that “woman is the glory of the man.” But there is another reason as well—and the rest of chapter 11 gives it away. The context of the remainder of chapter 11 concerns the Lord’s Supper, which is done in a public setting—“When you come together…” (v.20). So women are not praying and prophesying in private, or in secret, or to the side, but publicly in the congregation! This, then, is why they must wear a head covering.
But, according to Nelson, prophecy does not carry any biblical authority. However, this isn’t true, and 1 Corinthians 11 contradicts what Nelson believes. Why else would these prophetesses be ordered to wear head coverings in public if they weren’t assuming an authoritative position in the assembly when they prophesied? It is precisely because they are assuming an authoritative stance that they are ordered to wear head coverings by the congregation. The purpose for creating this rule was so that women could show submission to their husbands (a first-century concern and a present one) as well as exercise their God-given spiritual authority. However, the early church didn’t have the problem that some churches have today—prohibiting women from exercising spiritual authority in the assembly.

The idea of not wearing a head covering appeared to the church to be a sign of headship, of assuming headship in the household and in the marriage. Paul’s words, then, concern women recognizing their place in the home, and their place before their husbands. Even at the conclusion, however, Paul does not make this idea a rule: “if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Notice also that Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:29, “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Only prophets are able to judge prophecies, which means that prophets have a certain amount of biblical and spiritual authority (this is in addition to standing and speaking before the public assembly). Women, then, serving as prophetesses (1 Cor. 11:5), clearly had biblical and spiritual authority in the public assembly.

For those who wanna access the article, you can access it via the following website address: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Anne-Graham-Lotz-and-Women-in-Church-Leadership

From there, you can access the Washington Post article.

Euodia and Syntyche: Two Notable Philippian Women

EGALITARIAN CLAIM 7.8: WOMEN AS PAUL’S COWORKERS: WOMEN SUCH AS EUODIA AND SYNTYCHE (PHILIPPIANS 4:2-3) WERE PAUL’S COWORKERS AND THEREFORE HAD SIGNIFICANT LEADERSHIP ROLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Once again, I’m here to bring you another of Grudem’s “infamous” attacks against the egalitarian position. Grudem gives a three-part answer to this question (parts A, B, and C) but I’ll cut to the most serious answer he gives (some of his responses are a bit goofy and defy intellectual ability altogether, so I won’t waste time with answering crazy questions).
His best response for claim 7.8 is the following: “It is true that women were Paul’s coworkers, but the title ‘coworker’ does not imply that they had equal authority to Paul, or that they had the office of elder, or that they taught or governed in any New Testament churches” (248). His second response is “Some coworkers do things that other coworkers do not do” (248).

I’ll start with an example. Say that a person decides to go into business overnight and dreams of owning their very own business. Suppose that person decides to ask a friend to go into business with him, since he needs the extra energy, hands, and, not to mention, creativity. Within about six months, the company is alive and running and both men are given credit for ownership.
My question would be, “Who owns the business?” Keep in mind that one person decided to own a business, but asked a friend to join him in the business venture. If the original inventor is the owner, what does that make his friend—just an employee? No, I don’t think so! It makes the friend a CO-OWNER of the business. He and the original guy who dreamed up the idea are both CO-OWNERS! Each owns fifty percent of the company and are free to do with their fifty percent what they choose. Because they CO-OWN the business, they are both able to make lasting changes to the business and possess the power and authority to do so.

In Philippians 4, Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche as his “coworkers.” This means that they worked closely with Paul, they labored alongside of Paul, they were right there on the front lines of evangelism, aiding in starting churches and preaching and teaching, etc. Euodia and Syntyche are no mere “hospitality committee members,” that’s for sure. If they are coworkers with Paul, then that means they labored with him to accomplish great things for the Gospel’s sake. That alone makes them very visible members of Paul’s ministry teams.

During my time home over the Christmas season, I read one of five books entitled “A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity” by Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald. I’ll share some thoughts from this book in another blog post in the future. For now, I wanna talk about what I read in this book that ties into our investigation of Euodia and Syntyche:
“…Paul’s language implies that these women were involved in the evangelization of nonbelievers. They were apparently successful despite having experienced opposition from nonbelievers…using a verb that recalls the struggles of war or the violent contests of the games (sunathleo), the text describes them as coworkers who fought at Paul’s side in the gospel. The only other use of the term in the New Testament appears earlier in Philippians to refer to the struggle of the community against some external threat that Paul himself experienced (Phil. 1:27-30; see also Acts 16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2)” (“A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity”, 227).
According to Osiek, the word “sunathleo” refers to fighting, to contend, to struggling with something; and the fact that this verb is written by Paul about Euodia and Syntyche places them at the top of Paul’s workers in the churches he founded. If we look at a literal translation of the verb “sunathleo,” it literally means “to fight with,” or “to be a fighter with.” From the parent verb “athleo” comes our English word “athlete.” An athlete is one who plays sports, whether it be basketball, football, hockey, tennis, volleyball, track and field, gymnastics, etc. Athletes are distinguished from everyday people because they often wear uniforms at their games—and, they are usually the only ones who sweat themselves to death during the games! Athletes get themselves dirty in games—they dive for the ball, catch the baseball out in left field, slide to home base, make the winning soccer goal kick, hit the volleyball over the net, etc. Athletes, then, are very active in their games. No spectators are allowed to play in sports games—only the ATHLETES are. They do not sit on the sidelines and look pretty; no, they are the ones making plays happen for their team. And although everyone has a different part to play on the team, they are all still one team…and should they win a championship, everyone gets to share in the prestige and glory of victory (not one person is left out).

So to take this discussion of the verb “sunathleo” a little further, I will now look at the Philippians passage Osiek cites to see what we can gather about the significance of this “athlete” verb that just may set Euodia and Syntyche apart from the rest of Paul’s workers in the churches.
In Philippians 1:27-30, Paul tells the Philippians to “strive together for the faith of the gospel”(KJV). But this “striving together” is in a context that involves outside opposition: “And in nothing terrified by your adversaries” (1:28). In verse 30, Paul writes, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also TO SUFFER for his sake…” The verb is used here in a context of fighting against an enemy or an opponent.

Looking up the word “sunathleo” on my own, I discovered that Paul writes it to someone else—his son in the ministry, Timothy. 2 Timothy 2:5 is where we find our “famous” word: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” The word for “strive” is “athleo,” being used as a subjunctive (a statement of possibility). In 2 Timothy 2:5, Paul uses the word “athleo” because he is giving Timothy an analogy of an athlete. Notice in 2 Tim. 2:5 that Paul talks about a man being “crowned,” which indicates that the athletes here are not just any athletes, but probably olympians. The reason why Paul gives Timothy this exhortation is because he wants Timothy to fight a good fight: “Thou therefore ENDURE HARDNESS, as a good soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3, King James Version), “if we SUFFER we shall also reign with him” (v.12), and especially some of Paul’s opening words—“but be thou PARTAKER OF THE AFFLICTIONS of the gospel according to the power of God” (1:8). Paul is talking to Timothy about the spiritual warfare he must rage in the city of Ephesus, where false teaching is prevailing among the believers, causing some to wander from the faith (and causing others to doubt their faith).

The word “athleo” may be found elsewhere in Scripture (such studies are to be discussed at a later time); but, for now, we know that these women were on the front lines with Paul, “sweating” for the gospel’s sake. Grudem’s first response, that these women did not have equal authority to Paul, is just an attack with no scriptural basis. Paul, for instance, refers to Apollos, for instance, on the same plane as himself: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Look at these two verses. Paul notes that Apollos’ job is different from his own—he was charged by God to plant churches, while Apollos’ job was to edify the churches, to instruct believers, to build up the churches in the faith (in short, to nurse Paul’s “baby” churches and grow them into maturity). Nevertheless, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are both equally-called ministers of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 3:8, Paul writes, “Now he that planteth and he that watereth ARE ONE,” and in 3:9, “for we are laborers together with God…” He places himself and Apollos in the same category, and he doesn’t distinguish his power from Apollos’. To be brief, he isn’t caught up in how much power he had. He is simply concerned about God’s work and that the churches reap the fruits of he, Apollos’, and Cephas’s labor.
If Paul considered Apollos to be on the same level with him in ministry, and Apollos was not one of Paul’s “team workers,” then what does this tell us about his view of Euodia and Syntyche? Since they fought “side-by-side” with him, they were certainly on the same plane as Paul was. Evidently, these women were so powerful in the church at Philippi that their dissention was causing division among the believers.

In Grudem’s response (www.EFBT100.com), he uses, as an example of “fellow worker,” 3 John 8, where it reads, “Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be FELLOW WORKERS for the truth.” Grudem responds with saying, “But this surely does not mean that everyone who supported a traveling missionary had ruling authority over the churches!” (248) Grudem actually believes his usage of 3 John 8 proves his point; however, he fails to see that John actually qualifies his use of “fellow worker” in 3 John 8: “fellow workers OF THE TRUTH.” All of those who believe in Christ are fellow workers of the truth! Because this title refers to all believers, this is not a statement on par with Paul’s classifications of “fellow worker” throughout his letters. In the Pauline letters, there are several people who “worked hard” for Paul, but not all of them are called “fellow workers.” In contrast, every believer is “a fellow worker of the truth.” He lifts up those in 3 John who support missionaries, saying that all believers have an opportunity to support the truth. While this is a nice try, it is really an extreme example that has no bearing on Paul’s labels of certain individuals. Once again, Grudem plays a “1 Timothy 2” card. He is still hung up on the “insane” notion that women never had any spiritual authority in the churches…and the more we examine his responses to egalitarianism, the more the “1 Timothy 2” card shines through.