Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 3: Failure to Recognize Distinctions

“Of course the Bible teaches that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal. 3:28); but does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn? The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith...According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction; and a very good case can be made from New Testament evidence that a distinction was drawn between the gift of prophecy, which men and women could equally enjoy, and the church-recognized teaching authority over men, which only men could discharge” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 92-93).

Today’s fallacy quote by D.A. Carson comes from his labeled fallacy “Failure to Recognize Distinctions.” While Carson is quite the dogmatic Calvinist, he is also a staunch complementarian. You may not believe this, but most of his book spends time critiquing egalitarians more than it does Arminians (which is the other group he attacks).

Carson argues that, since men and women are biologically different, such biological distinctions testify to distinctions of spiritual authority in the church:

“does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn?”

The problem with this quote is that Carson goes from a biological distinction (that women are child-bearers) to spiritual authority without giving any biblical proof. At the most, this is just an absurd inference that the text does not justify. Not even the Scriptures state that spiritual authority is given on the basis of biological distinction. Rather, spiritual authority is given by the decision of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11). Carson is really stretching his exegesis on this one. To be somewhat facetious, “Who is going to do sound exegesis? Carson? Or do I now get my turn”?

Next, Carson gives another somewhat biological proof for his disagreement with women teaching men:

“According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction.”

What does “the weaker vessel” reference have to do with spiritual authority in the church? When Peter refers to the woman as the weaker vessel, he is not talking about the female intellect. 1 Peter 3:7 discusses the context of marriage (not spiritual authority in the church), so Peter is not saying that women are weak and cannot lead in church. Rather, he is referring to the woman in terms of physical strength, vulnerability in the marriage, etc. This is why men are to give honor to their wives: since Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians that “God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it” (1 Cor. 12:24, NKJV). Women are not only to be honored because God gives them greater honor in their marriages, but also “that your prayers may not be hindered.” Does this mean that the man’s prayers could be hindered if he dishonors his wife in any way? Yes. Could this possibly refer to spiritual gifts: that is, that if a man dishonors his wife in her spiritual calling, he will hinder his prayers? Absolutely! I doubt, however, that complementarians give this any thought. D.A. Carson does not, in his reference to the passage.

A wife desires to be cherished, to be appreciated, to be seen as more than a sex object to be tossed around at will. But how do complementarians justify their treatment of their wives in church when they prevent them to do what they are called to do? I am thinking of a couple at this very moment where both husband and wife have PhDs. The husband is allowed to teach, publish, write, research, and do all that is in his heart...while his wife received a PhD in order to sit by his side and take care of their children. How right is this? What did she get her PhD for if she would do nothing with it? And does the husband in this case not consider that he might be hindering his wife’s progress, the progress of their marriage, not to mention their prayers? It’s certainly something worth thinking about.

Carson ends his assessment with the idea that the Scriptures teach some sort of leadership distinction between men and women (appealing to 1 Timothy 2). The problem, however, is that one cannot just blow off the context of Galatians. Let’s now revisit Carson’s assessment of Galatians:

“The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith.”

Carson claims that neither male nor female “enjoys any special advantage,” and each person is “acquitted by grace through faith.” But, notice Carson’s “slide” qualification here: Carson doesn’t just say that neither enjoys special privileges; rather, the privilege that is the same for both male and female is “acquitted by grace through faith.” To Carson, salvation is alike for both male and female, but that’s all. Women are not given the same gifts as men for the same places of leadership in the church.

But does not God gives gifts as He pleases (1 Cor. 12:11)? If this be the case, then how can Carson argue that a distinction in gender explains the Holy Spirit’s moving? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit could have explained this if He desired to? Since the Spirit is the Creator of the early church, could He not have spoken to us clearly about the Spirit giving gifts “according to gender”? Paul clearly knew how to write “male and female” in Galatians 3:28---so why didn’t he write that in 1 Corinthians 12:11?

Carson’s exegesis has problems simply because he attempts to make distinctions in gifting a result of gender, not a result of the Spirit’s own decision. I guess the next question becomes, “Does the Spirit desire to gift according to gender?”...and sadly enough, Carson has staked out on a position that is unbiblical. If anyone has failed to recognize distinctions, it’s D.A. Carson himself, the same man (may I admit) that wrote a book explaining the nature and practice of exegetical fallacies.

Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 2: Reconciling 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14

For those who desire to see Pt. 1 of this series, please go to my other blog, The Center for Theological Studies (CTS).

“In this case, however, there is no need for such a procedure of last resort. The passage can be and has been adequately explained in its context. There are ample parallels to this way of looking to the Old Testament for a principle, not a quotation (and the principle in question is doubtless Gen. 2:20b-24, referred to by Paul both in 1 Cor. 11:8-9 and in 1 Tim. 2:13); and the demand for silence on the part of women does not bring on irreconcilable conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy, because the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15)” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 40-41).

In the last post, I critiqued Dr. Carson’s idea of a tense fallacy regarding I. Howard Marshall’s interpretation of Hebrews 3. I made it clear there that Carson simply takes the perfect tense, looks to the end of the human life, and concludes that those who are true believers are only those who endure to the end. You may not have caught on to it, but what Carson is saying is, “Only those who endure to the end ever believed to begin with.” The sad part about such a statement is, that if one does not endure to the end, according to Carson, such an individual was “never saved to begin with.” But, if the individual was never saved, then how about you and me? How about those who love God in the present, who serve Him, worship Him, and do His work? If believers in the here and now must endure to even know if they are saved, how can they know they are saved “now”? How can they know if they are saved “today”? See, Dr. Carson’s words sound believable until we start to question the believer’s salvation---then, things turn ugly. But Carson’s question is a good one for those who insist that the apostate “was never saved.” If the apostate can do what he did, how do you and I know that we will not end up like him? To know the end in the here and now takes a special omniscience, one that you and I do not possess whatsoever. Therefore, when we question that the apostate was ever saved, we are questioning if even we ourselves are saved...and I doubt the believer wants to take that treacherous step.

In today’s post, however, I will not discuss the doctrine of apostasy...instead, I will tackle another fallacy of Carson’s: “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.” In the quote above, we find Carson critiquing an assessment of Walter Kaiser Jr.’s regarding the word “nomos” (Grk. “law”) in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. Kaiser argues that the word “nomos” there refers to rabbinical law. Carson insists that this is highly unlikely, and then goes on to give his own assessment of what “law” Paul may have referred to: “the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

In the sentence before the one I just quoted (see quote above at the top of the post), Carson feels the need to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14 with the permission of women to prophecy before the congregation in 1 Corinthians 11. His solution? Women can pray and prophesy (as 1 Cor. 11 allows), but they cannot “evaluate prophecies.”

Now, whenever a solution or remedy is proposed to texts that seem to conflict with one another, the solution always has to be tested against the context. If there is a solution proposed that may sound believable but does not fit the context, then believers must toss the theory out and look for another proposal that will adhere to sound hermeneutics.

Since Dr. Carson has proposed the prohibition of women from prophecy evaluation, it’s now time to check that view against the context of 1 Corinthians (before we can decide whether or not it would even adhere to 1 Timothy 2).

First, let’s note that the background to 1 Corinthians 14:33 is concerned with bringing understanding to the body of Christ (as well as unbelievers). At the beginning of chapter 14, Paul tells the Corinthians that their focus on tongues as a spiritual gift is lopsidedly misguided: that is, they should desire to prophesy above all. Why? Because “he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him...but he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men...edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:2-4, NKJV).

This theme is continued in his discussion of speaking in tongues: “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). The goal of speaking in the church is to edify the body of Christ, to encourage, to push forward into the things of God. How can that be done if the person does not understand the language in which someone is speaking? How can one put something into action that he or she does not understand? Paul uses this logic to argue that speaking in tongues is a good gift and fit for use before God...but it is not to be publicly proclaimed amongst believers, especially when there is no interpreter to bridge communication between the unknown language and confused believers (1 Cor. 14:28).

In verses 29-32, Paul begins to turn the discussion towards prophets and prophecy: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.” What Paul is doing here is exactly what he is doing in all of chapter 14--- providing instructions on how to maintain order and harmony in the body of Christ. Things are out of place, as the Corinthians themselves desire to speak in tongues and are so doing, despite the presence/absence of an interpreter. Paul is aware that worship serves are becoming places where confusion runs rampant, so he feels the need to address the issues. With the prophets, each is to have his/her turn in prophesying, while each is to judge in turn. Paul’s emphasis on “ALL may learn and ALL may be encouraged” (v.31) is his way of saying, “everyone has a moment to act in church. No one person has to “bull-doze” the others in order to get a moment to prophesy and judge. There is enough room in God’s House (the church) for everyone to be given their opportunity to exercise their gifts.” In essence, “Corinthians, what are you fighting about?”

When we get to the prohibition against women speaking in church, the tendency is to do what Carson does: to claim that women are prohibited from evaluating prophecy, and tie it in with 1 Timothy 2 (which is Carson’s prooftext for everything women can and cannot do. What about the other texts regarding women?). However, the context does not point out that women cannot evaluate prophecy. After all, look at Paul’s words:

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).

If this follows with verses 31 and before, then Paul is saying that judging prophecy is to be left to those who are prophets in the house of God. And this contradicts Carson’s idea that women cannot judge prophecy because women themselves are prophets. As Carson himself says in the quote above, “...under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy” (Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies,” page 40). If women are allowed to pray “and prophesy,” then why would women be automatically forbidden from evaluation prophecy? I’ll set up a syllogism:

Premise #1: Only prophets can judge prophecy.

Premise #2: Some women are prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, female prophets (prophetesses) cannot judge prophecy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If women are prophets, and prophets are the ones to judge prophecy, then why would women be prohibited from judging prophecy? Carson’s thought here does not follow, considering his own admission that women were allowed to prophesy in the Corinthian congregation. He is only left, in the end, to appeal to 1 Timothy 2 to make his case.

By so arguing, Carson has forgotten the principal rule of hermeneutics: that is, that one must first assessment a statement made in the context in which the statement was written. One cannot make a case to link the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 with 1 Timothy 2 unless he or she knows what the statement meant to the Corinthian congregation in 1 Corinthians 14 (and the larger context of 1 Corinthians). Then and only then, can Carson appeal to 1 Timothy 2. As is seen here, Carson claims that he is calling Walt Kaiser, Jr. on a fallacy--- but instead, he fumbles and commits one of his own. See? “I told ya” that it’s ironic Carson commits exegetical fallacies in a book written against committing exegetical fallacies...

New Series!

                                                     Dear Men and Women,

 Your blog owner, Deidre Richardson here. I'm writing to share with you a new series I'm about to undergo at the site "Men and Women" as well as my other research site, "The Center for Theological Studies" (CTS). I sent CTS a post regarding the new series. I thought I'd send it to you all as well. May the Lord bless you in the days ahead. Happy New Year!
                                                                          - Deidre

                                          Dear Readership,

 Happy New Year again to you! About a week ago, I wrote my latest post at CTS. I realize that it has been an entire week since I've written. I wanna take time here to apologize to my readership for the time that I have been away. I am currently registered in a January term class here at Southeastern Seminary, called "Critical Thinking and Argumentation." I've spent the last two weeks going to class everyday from 8am-12:30pm, followed by a nap at home...only to wake up, shower, get dressed, grab dinner, and study with a brother of mine. It's been one heck of a two weeks!! Continue to pray for me; I am doing well, but I've pulled all-nighters everyday for the last two weeks just to make sure I'm up and awake for class at 8am. I don't do very well with morning classes, so I've been sleeping about 5 hours or so doing the day in order to have just enough sleep to stay up and do homework all night. In addition to the chapters of reading and the 150-page book my class has been reading (which I'll talk about in a minute), I've also been given the joy of having computer software (called "LogiCola") that tests your knowledge of the chapters in the book. I recently took my midterm in the Critical Thinking class and was thankful that I played with the software during the week. Many of the questions came from the software...so it was good to see that my efforts did not go unrewarded :-)


 On to the book my class has been reading...the title of the book is called "Exegetical Fallacies" by D. A. Carson. Now that I've read the book, I have to write an 8-page sermon (exegetical), using ten of the 56 fallacies Carson mentions in his book. It's a fun assignment...but it's also a hard one. I'm gonna struggle most with committing logical fallacies. I've been taught as an apologetics major here at Southeastern that God is a God of logic, a God of order...as creatures made in God's image and likeness, we too, should strive to think God's thoughts after Him. So committing logical fallacies to get a good grade...it's what I'm required to do, but my fear is that I'll write a sermon thinking I've committed fallacies that may not even be fallacies :-) such is the fear of every seminary student...


Having read Carson's book, I noticed that he tends to critique the views of Arminians and the position I'd like to refer to as "Spirit-gifting" in regards to the issue of women in ministry. I have used the term "egalitarian" at my other site, "Men and Women in the Church," but I do so to distinguish it from the view of complementarianism. There are some things that egalitarians believe that I do not. Among these, some egalitarians, particularly feminists, like to refer to "women's rights"  in regards to women in the church. Instead, I focus more on Spirit-gifting because to me, the debate on men and women in the church is not political, but Scriptural.  I hold to the headship of men in the home, but I do so because wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in several places in the New Testament. However, I don't see the kind of evidence that complementarianism espouses  regarding women in the church  in the Scriptures themselves. Rather, I see the presupposition (or assumption) that 1 Timothy 2: 8-15 means that women cannot be in leadership, and then everything else in Scripture regarding women is defined in terms of that one text (others being Titus 2 or 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, etc.). I think 1 Timothy 2 as it has been interpreted by complementarians cannot stand up to the claims the Scriptures themselves make regarding the gifting of the Spirit. God didn't create roles irrespective of Spirit-gifting; rather, He created roles "in accordance with" Spirit-gifting. As a result, complementarians have to prove that a woman cannot serve in a role because she is not given certain gifts, rather than just "women have certain fixed roles in the church." And I don't think anyone can claim that God can't gift a woman to preach, teach, pastor, etc. To make that claim would amount to heresy, as some would begin to limit God's sovereignty. Calvinists (and even some Arminians) should think twice before making this mistake.


 And that brings me to the announcement. This coming week, starting Monday, January 17, 2011, I intend to start a new series here at the Center for Theological Studies titled "Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's 'Exegetical Fallacies.'" I think that Dr. Carson, as much as I respect him, has fallacies on his own (ironicly) in a book in which he tells believers not to commit exegetical fallacies. What I aim to do in this new series is show that Carson brings his own presuppositions to the biblical evidence, and that he attacks all views that disagree with his and uses both Arminians and egalitarians as part of his "fallacy" attacks. I have to be honest and admit that he does attack some of his Calvinist brethren who smear Calvin's name (and claim that Calvin separated faith and reason), but these examples are few compared to the "overwhelming" (I can use no less of an honest term) attacks he makes against egalitarians and their claims. I for one here at the Center often critique sharply the views of those who disagree with me...but I have my reasons. And I hope that you, the readership, will seriously study my views of theology and the Scriptures and question whether or not I hold to the biblical text. I desire to be faithful to what God says in His Word. I realize that we all have presuppositions, but that is not the issue; rather, the question to ask ourselves is, "Does the Bible support the way I think about this?", or, "Does the Bible support my perspective on this given issue?". These are the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves.


 So much for a brief announcement! In any case, I just wanted to let you all know that I am soon to return to CTS. I have much to tell and show in the coming days about the new understanding the course in Critical Thinking has provided. God bless you all...and keep studying the Scriptures for the glory of God.

"No Longer Binding"

“In the first-century situation with its generally patriarchal society, where women played little part in public affairs, teaching by women could be regarded as an unacceptable breach of behavior patterns, whether among Jews or also among some Gentiles. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESTRICTION CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A CULTURALLY SHAPED PROHIBITION THAT IS NO LONGER BINDING IN A DIFFERENT SETTING. The difficulty is in the appeal to Scripture that is used to back up the prohibition. It has a twofold argument that Adam was created prior to Eve (and therefore is superior), and that it is Eve who was deceived by the serpent (with the implication that women are still more likely to be deceived than men). THIS SEEMS TO BE A DOCTRINAL RATHER THAN A CULTURAL CONSIDERATION AND IS DECISIVE FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF A PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE ACCEPTED EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS TO RUN AGAINST THE GRAIN OF NT TEACHING GENERALLY (e.g., Gal. 3:28)” (I. Howard Marshall, “1 Timothy,” from “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey” by Kevin Vanhoozer, General Editor. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, page 166).

Have you ever had a moment in which someone you admired or had great respect for said something that you disagreed with? I had that moment when reading the above quote. Marshall writes that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 could be interpreted as “a culturally shaped prohibition that is no longer binding...” These words trouble me greatly.

Now, I have to confess: I was raised in a very strict Christian home where the Bible was the infallible, inerrant, inspired, Word of God. No one questioned in my family that the Bible was the ultimate source of authority for godly living. But along with these presuppositions regarding Scripture was placed another presupposition: that is, that the words of Scripture themselves were always binding on God’s people; that is, that in every verse of Scripture, there was a principle that could be applied to contemporary living (as was the thought of two thousand years ago).

Imagine then, what I thought when I stumbled upon I. Howard Marshall’s words. I have great respect for Dr. Marshall. I read his work, own some of his work, and value him as a theologian and Greek scholar. But I disagree with interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 as just a “culturally shaped prohibition.”

I think the problem with the universal principle behind 1 Timothy 2:12 involves how to take the prohibition, wrapped in its context, and “connect the bridge” (my hermeneutics professor once said) from the time of the first century to the twenty-first century. To discover the universal principle behind the verse, we must first accept the idea that the Scriptures are binding at all times, in all places. The universal binding of Scripture can be seen via two passages, 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 1:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).

“knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPOKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that “all Scripture” is inspired and useful for “instruction in righteousness.” The word “all” in the Greek is “pas,” which, according to Thayer’s Dictionary means “individually, each, every, any, whole,” etc. The parts of Scripture comprise to create “all Scripture.” If this is the case, then everything that is said about “all Scripture” includes 1 Timothy 2:12. I’ll set up a syllogism:

1)”All Scripture” is inspired by God and useful.

2) 1 Timothy 2:12 is part of Scripture.

3) If all Scripture is divinely inspired and useful, and 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of Scripture, then 1 Timothy 2:12 is divinely inspired and useful.

This being the case, we must find out what universal principle we can draw from the text itself. One of the main universal principles we can draw out of the text is to attack false teaching. In the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 is 1 Timothy 1, where Paul gives Timothy his reason for leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus:
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia---remain in Ephesus THAT YOU MAY CHARGE SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Timothy 1:1).

“knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...and if there is any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:9-10).

“desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7).

In the immediate context of chapter 2, the issue that plagues the church at Ephesus is false teaching. So, a universal principle could be, “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and put down the false teaching. Paul does this himself when he writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Here, Paul was setting the record straight: it was not Adam who was deceived (“Adam was not deceived”), it was Eve; and Adam was first in creation, not Eve (“Adam was formed first, then Eve”).

Now, by providing words above, I don’t mean to say that ONLY WOMEN who are teaching false doctrine should be put down. This is where I stand against many conservatives: I think that the Bible’s emphasis is to put down false teaching always, regardless of whether it comes from a man or a woman (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; Titus 1:10-14 and Titus 2; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Colossians 2:8-10; Galatians 3-5; Romans 11; etc).

Scripture seems to attack false teaching, from beginning to end. Even after the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) there is attack made on false teaching in the letters of 2 Peter, Jude, and so on. I. Howard Marshall errs in his argument when he writes that the prohibition is possibly a “culturally-shaped” prohibition without a universally binding principle. If one believes the Bible to be the ultimate authoritative standard for the Christian life, then one must affirm the universally-binding principles of the Word of God. Someone who fails to affirm a universal principle in the teaching prohibition might feel the need someday to argue that the biblical teaching on the exclusivity of Christ as “The Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) is only a temporary statement as well.

Female Rabbi Ordained in Germany

Dear Readership,


I just stumbled today upon this article regarding a female, Alina Treiger, who was just ordained to be the first female rabbi since 1935. If I'm not mistaken, Alina Treiger was ordained to the German rabbi circle on November 4, 2010. To read the article, go here:


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6188567,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf


I desire to know your thoughts on this somewhat history-making event for Germany. Please comment here to give me some feedback. I'm sure this will make for interesting discussion.

"A Deeper Theological Issue"

“Why this concern to separate the roles of men and women and to silence women teachers in the church’s worship? At the practical level, SILENCING WOMEN TEACHERS CUT THE FALSE TEACHING OFF AT ITS SOURCE---wealthy women, as we have seen, were probably financing the false teachers and spreading the false teachers’ heresy themselves, and younger widows, happily released from any obligation to marry and care for children, were going about from house to house teaching the heresy” (Frank Thielman, “Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, page 419).

Reading the above quote from Frank Thielman’s New Testament Theology encouraged my heart somewhat. I stayed up late this morning to see what he had to say about the Pastoral Epistles. I’ve read a great deal of his theology textbook this semester and I like the things he has to say. His work has been impeccable, in all of the letters of the NT he traces. So I wanted to know his thoughts. Immediately, I began to think of the site here, “Men and Women,” and it became clear to me that I would have a blog post---whether it would be a positive or negative one, I would have something new to add to the work done here.

I sat down and read attentively. And in his section titled “The Church Gathered For Worship,” I read the above quote. All along, Thielman implicated women in the false teaching at Ephesus:

“...false teachers are ‘ruining whole households’ (Titus 1:11). They apparently do this by insinuating themselves into homes and CONVINCING ALREADY CORRUPT WOMEN OF THEIR FALSE TEACHING (2 TIM. 3:6). PERHAPS WE CAN ALSO LINK TOGETHER PAUL’S claim that a desire for wealth motivated the false teachers (1 Tim. 6:5; cf. 6:6-10, 17-19), his concern that women not make ostentatious displays of their wealth (2:9), and HIS CONCERN THAT WOMEN NOT TEACH IN THE CHURCH (2:11-14). WEALTHY WOMEN IN EPHESUS MAY HAVE BEEN PAYING THE FALSE TEACHERS TO TUTOR THEM AND THEN CONVEYING THE FALSE TEACHING THEY LEARNED TO THE CHURCHES THAT MET IN THEIR HOUSES” (Thielman, 412).

“If men in the church are involved in angry disputes, they cannot lift holy hands in prayer, and if their behavior hinders their prayers, then it also hinders the advancement of the gospel (2:1-8). If WOMEN IN THE CHURCH ARE abandoning modesty and like Eve, succumbing to Satan’s offer of sinful knowledge, AND THEN TEACHING THIS ERROR TO OTHERS (2:9-14; 5:15), then their very salvation is threatened (2:15)” (414).

“WOMEN---particularly the wealthy women who may have paid the false teachers to tutor them, and the younger widows whom the church has supported from its common funds---ARE APPARENTLY AMONG THE CHIEF ADVOCATES OF THE HERESY THAT HAS LED TO THIS BEHAVIOR. WEALTHY WOMEN ARE PERHAPS TEACHING THE HERESY IN THEIR HOUSES while the men spend church meetings not in prayer but in angry disputes about the heresy. THE YOUNGER WIDOWS, freed by the largesse of the church from the responsibilities of marriage and child-rearing, which they do not believe in anyway, CAN SPEND THEIR TIME MAKING THE ROUNDS OF BELIEVERS’ HOUSEHOLDS ADVOCATING THE FALSE TEACHING” (417).

In these four references (the beginning quote plus the three quotes above), Thielman seems to link women with the false teaching: not only were they listening to it and entertaining it, they were also teaching it themselves. In the first quote above, Thielman states that to prohibit women from teaching would stop the spread of heresy. Since women were the ones propagating and clinging to the heresy, prohibiting the women teaching would stop the false teachers’ influence in the church at Ephesus. In turn, the false teachers would have to find some other way to stir up trouble (aside from the women).

But this is where Thielman then takes a turn for the worse:

“As is already apparent from Paul’s willingness to separate the roles of the sexes in worship in 2:8-9 and to silence all women teachers in 2:12, however, a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship. Paul states this issue explicitly in 2:13-15. God fashioned human beings in two genders, male and female, and the order in which he created them implies distinct roles in the church for each gender...women should submit to the authority of the church’s male leadership because ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve’ (2:13). Men, rather than women, should teach BECAUSE EVE RATHER THAN ADAM WAS SATAN’S FIRST VICTIM IN THE DECEPTION THAT LED TO THE DISOBEDIENCE DESCRIBED IN GENESIS 3:6. THE IMPLICATION IS CLEAR: Adam and Eve violated the divine ordering of the genders when Eve led Adam to disobey God’s command” (419).

Up to this point, Thielman has shown us in context that women were involved in teaching heresy; that women were not only soaking up the teaching but spreading that to others, presumably other women in the congregation. In addition there is evidence that these women may very well have been told to “learn in silence with full submission” (2:11) because they had been disrupting the learning process during worship services. But how then, does his last statement connect to the four quotes he made prior to this last one?

What I’m asking is, “How can Thielman connect women to false teaching in the context of 1 Timothy 2 and then “broaden” the scope of teaching to all teaching in general in his application of the text? Yes, hermeneutics (the study of biblical interpretation) teaches us that context-specific principles can be generalized and applied to everyday life; but why can this text not refer to anyone teaching falsely, whether it be man or woman? And why can’t it be the case that women are not to teach heresy, not that they are prohibited from teaching sound doctrine?

For Thielman, the answer is found in Paul’s usage of Genesis. I have stated here at the site, however, that Paul writes “And Adam was not deceived” for a reason: if Genesis does not provide these words, why does Paul use them? He does so to defend the Law as it was being attacked in the book of Genesis. Thielman notes this as well (page 410), but does not make the connection. He even goes on to talk about the Nag Hammadi document “On the Origin of the World,” which states that “the goddess Pistis Sophia created the god of Genesis (‘the ruler’) and then withdrew to her region of light, leaving ‘the ruler’ with the impression that ‘[he] alone existed’” (Thielman, 410; quoting “On the Origin of the World”). However, Thielman still does not put two and two together that, if the Gnostic document claimed that the woman “created the god of Genesis,” that she must have been seen as having been created first---before the man. Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:13 make sense in light of this document. Paul then, was trying to refute the false (Gnostic) teaching that Eve was created before Adam, by affirming what the Bible teaches--- that Adam was created before Eve.

Thielman goes to such lengths to argue women as propagators of the false heresy (and students of the false teachers), not to mention that “proto-Gnostic teaching” (Thielman, 422) comprised the nature of the false teaching prevalent via women in the church at Ephesus. Why then, when he comes to his application, does he divorce the issue of false teaching from the application? Does God not want us to stomp out false teaching today? Does the Lord no longer care when falsehood is being taught in our pulpits, classrooms, and churches? Is it okay for Sunday School lessons to be plagued with gross statements about God that detract from (rather than reflect) His character? If God is still committed to this, then why is this theme of “anti-false teaching” not provided in Thielman’s analysis? Why is it that the point of Paul’s prohibition to the women is to keep them from teaching or holding offices of leadership in the churches?

In the end, all we receive of Thielman’s response to my questions above is “a deeper theological issue is at stake in this gender-specific ordering of worship” (419). But how do we know this “deeper theological issue” is really present in the text? In fact, Thielman’s words about women and the creation order are only mentioned for the first time in his modern-day application. All throughout his exegesis, he has focused on the false teaching and its impact. He has failed to do his homework and show us why Paul was so concerned with “putting women in their place” in the epistle.

Wanna know what my analysis is? I think Paul was concerned with the women neglecting duties of childbearing and homecare because to focus on such duties would prevent women from being prey to the false teachers and their heresy. Paul wanted women to do what was godly so that, by their example, they could serve as leaders in the church. After all, “if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5, NKJV).

What I Didn't Expect To Find...

I fought the urge to go to class today. Fall Break just came and went, almost as if it had never come. And sitting in my apartment today, I said out loud, “I don’t wanna go to class.”
I usually get in this “I-don’t-wanna-go” mood a lot...but a dear friend said to me, “Go to class”...so off to class I went.

I never expected to get to class and deal with the discussion of women in ministry. This subject has been mentioned before in my class, but whenever the topic arises, I know the theological slant of my professor and fellow students...so I just let it go and try to find something else with which to occupy my mind. Usually, I’ve found that when one disagrees, the best way to keep from getting angry is to find something else upon which to focus one’s attention. Sometimes, aversion is bliss...

Today, the text that my class spent almost an hour on was the controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2. My professor spent time examining this passage, telling the seminar class that “I’m a complementarian because of 1 Timothy 2.” For him, the chapter itself gives specific instructions (with no details hidden) that women are not to have spiritual authority over men in the church. I stayed quiet during the one-hour discussion because I wanted to find out my professor’s reason for so believing.

He did state, however, during his lecture time on the passage that “I think the best case an inerrantist can make for the egalitarian position is to argue that Paul wrote to Timothy regarding a specific case in the church at Ephesus, but that this specific situation was for the time of Paul’s letter and is not for today.”

Now, before I go on, let me say that I believe that Scripture itself can always show us something in the current era. We never arrive at a place where we have “outgrown” the Word of God. So, as an inerrantist (one who believes Scripture to be without error), I believe that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2 are meant to teach us a universal principle. I simply disagree with complementarians over the nature of that universal principle (“what” the principle is).

After conceding that an inerrantist could hold to a rather formidable position (i.e., the church faced a specific, unusual situation) on the passage, the professor said, “Now, I’ll show you why I think the passage is teaching a universal principle. Turn to 1 Timothy 2.” With those words, the class (me included) feasted our eyes on a passage that I’ve read, seemingly, a million times. And then, the professor told us to turn to verse 13. The verse reads,

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13, NKJV).

The professor then said, “See, Adam was created first. This holds true for today, right? As a result, I think that this verse shows that Paul’s prohibition is still binding for all women in the church at all times.”

Let me first credit the prof with what he did right: first, he started at the beginning of the prohibition (1 Tim. 2:11), and it’s always a good thing to start at the beginning of any passage. However, let me now critique the prof: he did not finish the passage itself; rather, he arrived at verse 13 and read no further. What about verses 14 and 15? Don’t they play a role in the interpretation of the prohibition as well?

Let’s go back and evaluate the professor’s reasoning. Verse 13, according to him, is still binding today. That is true: Adam, according to Scripture, was created before Eve. That hasn’t changed, and neither has the Law (all of the Old Testament). God’s Word never changes, and, since this be the case, then Genesis has not changed. When it states that Adam was the first human created by God, it means it.

But my question to this prof would have been, “What about verse 14?” Why does Paul get defensive in his stance regarding Adam? That is, why does Paul state that “Adam was not deceived”? Where in the Scriptures themselves do we find these words? We don’t---not even in Genesis. So the fact that Paul is having to defend Adam’s non-deception and Eve’s deception lends credence to the idea that Paul is writing his prohibition against women in order to defend the Law---not because he’s giving a word or two on what he thinks women ought to do in the church.

And what about context? Does not 1 Timothy 1 serve as the immediate, surrounding context to 1 Timothy 2? Why was 1 Timothy 1 not consulted when the prof arrived at his interpretation? Now the professor did note that “there is much related to false teaching going on in the letter”; however, why not read the verses on that material to let the class see why the egalitarian position has some strength? Why instead, would the prof turn to the class and ask them, “What do you think are some of the possible evidences egalitarians would use to defend women in ministry?”

And this prof happens to be one who always says, “A text means what it means in its context.” If the text cannot be divorced from the context, then why does he divorce the text from its context in his own interpretation? If one has to go against his own beliefs in interpretation (i.e., if the prof has to take the passage out of context), doesn’t this signal that something is wrong with the interpretation? If we cannot sin and expect grace to abound (Romans 3:5-8), then how can we disconnect text from context and expect our interpretation to be correct? How can one start wrong and end up right? And if one starts wrong and ends up right, does this create a “Machiavellian” hermeneutic, where the end (i.e., what I think the text says) justifies the means (whether or not I place the passage in its context)?

What I didn’t expect to find today was a discussion on 1 Timothy 2. What I also didn’t expect to find, however, was a transgression of hermeneutic principles in the name of what he believed to be the right interpretation. Chalk it all up to what happens when we become the traditions we espouse so dearly.

Gnosticism In The Pastorals, Pt. II: Eve's Song

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20, New King James Version).

The word “contradictions” here in the NKJV is the word “antitheseis” in the Greek, meaning “anti” (against) and “theseis” (arguments). The word “antithesis,” then, means “against arguments.” Used in the context of 1 Timothy 6:20, Paul is saying to Timothy that he should avoid the “arguments against” the truth from “pseudonumou gnoseos,” meaning “false-named knowledge.”

This series will take us through what are called “The Nag Hammadi Scriptures.” For those who have never been introduced to the Nag Hammadi, they are, in the words of James M. Robinson, “a collection of thirteen papyrus codices----bound books, not scrolls---that were buried near the city of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt most likely in the second half of the fourth century CE...this is indeed a dramatic escalation of source material on early Christian, Neoplatonic, Hermetic, Sethian, and Valentinian thought” (James M. Robinson, “Preface,” from “The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The International Edition.” New York: HarperOne, 2007, page xi).

The Nag Hammadi are a collection of thirteen books that contain many different theological and philosophical treatises. The name of the Nag Hammadi was given to them because of where they were found (Nag Hammadi, Egypt). According to James Robinson, “most of the tractates are Gnostic” (xi), which leads us to believe that Gnostic thought was highly cherished by the community that lived at Nag Hammadi. It is Gnostic thought that I will be exploring in this enormous series we are embarking upon. The purpose of examining the Gnostic Gospels is so that we can see the types of teaching that existed in Gnostic thought. Upon studying the Pastorals and the Gnostic Gospels, one will understand why the context of the Pastorals had nothing to do with women in ministry and everything to do with false teaching and its destructive impact upon the church of Jesus Christ.

To begin our study of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, I thought it would be best to start with a small section of a Gnostic work. Tonight’s small section will come from the Gnostic essay, “On the Origin of the World,” described by Marvin Meyer as “a smart Gnostic essay by an author who uses argumentation, narration, and colorful illustration in order to demonstrate the basic points of a Gnostic worldview” (“The Nag Hammadi Scriptures,” page 199).

The section I will come from in “On the Origin of the World” is Eve’s speech, called “The Song of Eve” (114, 4-24):

“Eve is the first virgin, and she gave birth to her first child without a man. She was her own physician. For this reason she is said to have declared:

‘I am PART OF MY MOTHER, and I AM THE MOTHER.
I am the WIFE, I am the VIRGIN.
I am PREGNANT, I am the PHYSICIAN,
I am the comforter of birth pains.
My husband PRODUCED ME, and I AM HIS MOTHER,
And he is my father and lord.
He is my strength, he speaks of what he wants reasonably.
I AM BECOMING, but I HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO A LORDLY PERSON’” (“Song of Eve,” from “On the Origin of the World,” 114, 4-24. From the “Nag Hammadi Scriptures, The International Edition.” New York: HarperOne, 2007, page 213).

What is a contradiction? I said it above that a contradiction, or the Greek word “antitheseis,” refers to that which “argues against” something said before it. Well, contradictions are all over the place in the Song of Eve. First, she states, “I am part of my mother, and I am the mother.” How does this occur? How can person be both an offspring AND the parent all at the same time? Were this true, Eve would have been “self-created,” which is a contradiction (and an absurdity!).

The next line “I am the wife, I am the virgin,” is also absurd. If someone is a wife (married), how then can they be a virgin (a sign of singleness)? To be a “wifely virgin” is similar to a woman who is a “married batchlorette” or a man who is a “married batchelor.” The two terms side-by-side are a contradiction, for both cannot be true at the same time. It is likely that a man could once be a “batchelor” and then “married” or vice versa; but both cannot be true simultaneously.

The next major absurdity in the Song of Eve is “My husband produced me, and I am his mother.” How can Eve be the offspring of her “husband,” first of all? If she is his wife, how can she be both wife AND child? Next, if she is either wife or child, how then can she be her husband’s “mother”? These are absurdities that make no sense. And her “husband” cannot be her “father” and “lord”; all three cannot peacefully coexist. A father cannot be a husband (this is incest), and a husband cannot be a father.

Last but not least, what about “I am becoming, but I have given birth to a lordly person”? How can Eve be “becoming” and yet “begetting” at the same time? In order to give birth to a “lordly person,” Eve must be a person herself, with a fixed essence of humanness; this doesn’t exist, however, if Eve is “becoming.” Once again, the contradiction is all over the place.

To conclude, let me say that Paul was write when he wrote to Titus in Crete that he should “avoid foolish disputes...for they are UNPROFITABLE and USELESS” (Titus 3:9). The Song of Eve is such an example: it is a song that is full of contradiction (things that go against common sense) and useless. It serves no purpose to write in the manner in which Eve’s speech is written. Is it no wonder that Paul attacked this heresy of the first-century the way he did?

Gnosticism In the Pastorals, Pt. I: Introduction to Context

“The so-called Pastoral Epistles—the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus—,which go back to the beginning of the second century and were perhaps written in Ephesus, discuss the Gnostic heresy, which they explicitly name ‘Gnosis,’ less intensively, but they insist the more on a strict separation; the pursuit of Gnosis is thought to be useless. The soil is here prepared for the later polemic against the heretics: the false teaching is contrasted with the right, sound teaching, the abandonment of which means apostasy from truth, reason and conscience…little can be learned about the ideas of THE REJECTED HERESY; IT SEEMS TO BE A STRANGE MIXTURE OF GNOSTIC DOCTRINES AND JEWISH PIETY, A JEWISH-CHRISTIAN FORM OF GNOSIS. MYTHS (I.E. FABLES) AND GENEALOGIES PLAY A PART, EVIDENTLY IN THE SENSE OF GNOSTIC PLEROMA SPECULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW. ONE GLORIES IN HIGHER KNOWLEDGE AND MAKES ASCETIC DEMANDS AS E.G. ABSTINENCE FROM MARRIAGE AND THE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN FOODS” (“Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism” by Kurt Rudolph. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1984, pages 302-303).

Kurt Rudolph argues in the quote above that Gnostic teaching existed in churches of the first century (after Christ’s ascension). First, he tells us that “the Gnostic heresy…which they explicitly name GNOSIS” is the name of the false teaching in the church. To demonstrate this, Rudolph cites 1 Timothy 6:20—

“O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of WHAT IS FALSELY CALLED KNOWLEDGE” (1 Tim. 6:20, NKJV).

The Greek word for “knowledge” is “gnosis.” “Gnosis” is the noun form of “knowledge,” but a word similar to “gnosis” is “ginosko,” meaning “to know.” This is where the word “gnosticism” comes from. Gnosticism is “the study of knowledge.”

Rudolph tells us that “little can be learned about the ideas of the rejected heresy…Myths (i.e. fables) and genealogies play a part, evidently in the sense of Gnostic pleroma speculations and interpretations of the law.”

1 Timothy 1 tells us that myths and genealogies were included in the Gnostic heresy:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to FABLES AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1:3-4, NKJV).

The Greek word “genealogiais,” from which our English word “genealogies” derives, refers to a record of birth, a family line or family tree. According to Thayer’s Dictionary of the New Testament, the word “genealogiais” refers to “a record of descent or lineage.” The heresy of the first century, therefore, involved issues of creation order. I will not go into great discussion now, but “genealogies” may be the problem that Paul is getting at in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, when Paul states that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13). The reason behind why Paul must argue that Adam was the origin (“author” or “authentikos”) of man is because the women there were arguing that Eve was created first. This will be a most interesting thing to explore when we dive into the Gnostic Gospels themselves.

Not only were myths and genealogies a problem for Timothy at Ephesus, they also troubled Titus on the island of Crete. Paul writes:

“But avoid foolish disputes, GENEALOGIES, contentions, and STRIVINGS ABOUT THE LAW; for they are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9).

As we can see, genealogies are also a problem at the church in Crete. In addition to this, though, we find that the Law and “strivings about” it are problems as well. The Law was also a problem for the church at Ephesus:

“From which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate…and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:6-10).

The Law, being the Old Testament Scriptures, was also a part of the chaos at the church at Ephesus as well. Paul, however, wanted Timothy to know that the Law is not bad in and of itself—but it can be bad based upon how the Law is used. If the Law is used in a good way, then it will do much good…but if it be used in a wrong way, it will do much harm. We also see that there are those who desire to teach, but are saying the wrong things and don’t understand that they are propagating heresy and false teaching. Perhaps the women of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are included here…

One more thing to point out: since the Law itself is involved in the chaos of the churches of Ephesus and Crete, perhaps the Law has something to do with Paul’s need in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to affirm that Adam was created first and Eve was the one deceived. These events would line up with the events of Genesis chapters 1-3. After all, Genesis is a book of the Law (the OT Scriptures), is it not??

There are other things Rudolph includes in the above quote that I will leave for future days. At the moment, however, let me just say that the goal of this post was to provide for my readership a chance to “peek” into the issues of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) and what they can reveal to us about the Gnostic heresy of the first century. While the Gnostic movement was not as formalized as it was in the second and third centuries (one-hundred to two-hundred years later), the ideas were certainly floating around the church. I will begin to glean evidence from Scripture regarding the false teaching in my next post.

The Early Church and Gnosticism: The Context Behind the Pastorals

Dearest Readership,

What a joy it is to write this announcement! I am so thankful to the Lord that He has allowed me the opportunity to return to my personal blog ("Men and Women") and continue writing to the glory of God.

I desire to announce that the work here at Men and Women in the Church will begin to take a different turn from the last series I did here. That series was on the Trinity and how we see good news for women in the fact that Christ's subordination on earth was not an eternal subordination. To have a situation of "God in hierarchy" in eternity would lead to such heresies as "tritheism" (three Gods, instead of one God) and the Lord Jesus Himself would be beneath us in eternity. Even Jesus said in the Gospels that there will be no marriage in heaven---which means that male headship in the home will not last forever! And if the church of God is supposed to be the visible sign of the kingdom of God come to earth, then we have got to stop completely living with a "life on earth is how it is" mentality. If we are now sons of God, we have to prepare for the day when we will fully live out that sonship...this means, then, that men have got to stop thinking in terms of power and control and begin to think of what life in Christ is really all about.

Those who stress the differences of the Trinity members do so at great peril; those who stress the similarities too much begin to conflate the Trinity (and the Son and Father, for instance, could be labeled the same person in this mindset). What believers must learn to do is demonstrate both the similarities and differences of the Trinity members. But we must not let go of the fact that, whether it be "Father," "Son," or "Spirit," none are "less God" than the other members. All three members of the Trinity are God, and share the essence of divinity. Because of this, neither can be "eternally subordinate" to the others, in the same way that no one human is eternally subordinate to any other human.

The new series will deal with a subject that I have been wanting to approach for a long time: that is, the context of the Pastorals. I have written some work here on complementarian scholars who argue that Gnosticism and false teaching is not the context of the Pastorals, and that the real issue is the role of women in the church. I intend to look at the Pastorals themselves to glean all the info we can about the situations that existed in the letters themselves; next, I intend to focus on how the details of the Pastorals "line up" with what we know of Gnosticism and the Gnostic Gospels. In addition, I will provide quotes from the church fathers themselves, who battled Gnosticism from even within the church (take Marcion for example, who even truncated down his version of the canon, even diminishing the amount of material in Luke's Gospel; Luke's was all he kept in his version of the Scriptures). All of this research is geared at showing believers that Paul did battle Gnosticism in his day (what scholars call "Proto-Gnosticism," meaning "first Gnostic thought").

It is my prayer that this will put to rest the idea that the Pastorals are just all about church leadership and that they are simply manuals for church leadership. While Paul does provide administrative counsel in these letters, he does so because of the atmosphere at the time: the church was battling false teaching from without that was being brought "within" the church. No wonder then, that Paul could write to the Corinthians, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3, NKJV)!

Thanks so much for your support...and I apologize for my time away. For those of you who desire to see what I've been working on in all the time I've been away, please read posts written at my other blog, "Center for Theological Studies." I've done some interesting work there on the Doctrine of Eternal Security (or Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints) as well as discussed issues of hermeneutics in the biblical text. I think the church needs to know what hermeneutics is and how valuable it was to the early church (and should be to us today).

Continue to pray for me and the work done here in cyberspace. May God grant you the opportunity to hang in here with me as we embark on this exciting series. May the Lord bless you and keep you until the day of His return.

When Theory Meets Practice: What Happens When Complementarians "Practice What They Preach"

Just this past week, I stopped by a local bookstore. I enjoy spending time “lusting” amongst the shelves, loaded with nothing but academically-delicious books (yes, I just made that phrase up!). While in there, I talked with a woman who is a higher-up in the bookstore, second in command only to another manager. She runs the day-to-day work in the bookstore, and everyone who works the cashiers and all take orders from her. Needless to say, she’s the “right-hand woman” around the place.

We talked some days ago about the manager, who is supposedly retiring sometime in the near future. In any case, the man who owns the place will need a new manager to run his store...and there she is, a qualified businessperson to run it, with about 15 years of experience in the store itself (the manager has worked the store for 25 years). Sadly enough, though, she probably will not be placed in charge of it because...you guessed it! She’s a woman!

Some of the owner’s friends played golf with him one day and expressed that their sons needed jobs. Since they and the bookstore owner are such good friends, they figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask the owner for jobs for their sons; and the owner found it no trouble at all to grant their sons the jobs. The owner told the friends, “They don’t even need to interview for the positions; just tell them to be in the bookstore Monday at 9am, and the jobs are theirs.”

Monday morning came, and the sons found themselves in the bookstore. Just as the sons were putting on their uniforms, the woman (the good friend I talked with) told them, “Now, after you get your uniforms on, I need you to start stacking the new books for the new semester courses on the shelves in the back room.” All through the day, the sons found it hard to work; they were little inspired, and everything seemed to come hard. All they wanted to do was see 5pm roll around so they could go home and relax after what they believed to be a “hard day.”

As 5pm rolled around, the sons were relieved to clock out. What they wanted to do, though, was have a little chat with the store owner. Evidently, something grieved them to the point where they needed to talk about it for some time.
As they were in the office talking with the store manager, the assistant came in and overheard the conversation. “I’m glad you wanted to give me a job,” one of the sons said. “But I didn’t know that I would have to work for a woman; I thought I was working directly for you. I thought I was taking orders from you.”

“What’s wrong with my assistant, Linda?” The manager said.
“Oh, nothing’s wrong with her.” At this point all the sons chimed in.

“We think that she’s great; she helped us find all the shelves, showed us around the store, helped us with price labeling and everything. She’s great.”

“Well, then, the problem is...” At this point, the manager began to turn serious.

“Well...she’s a woman,” one son reluctantly said.

“Well, of course, she is,” the manager exclaimed. “Don’t you think I see that?”

“Don’t you have a problem with that?” One of the sons asked.

“The Bible itself teaches from 1 Timothy 2 that the man is over the woman--- ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve.’ By right, one of us should have the assistant manager’s position, and she should be reporting to us.”

The manager responded with a firm but dedicated tone. “Linda will work here as the assistant manager; and if you gentlemen don’t like that, find somewhere else to work.” The manager walked out and closed the door behind him, leaving the sons to their shame. The next day, the sons took his advice, turned in their uniforms, and left the store.

In the account above, we can see that the sons had a problem with reporting to a female. In their minds, 1 Timothy 2 entitled them to rule over a woman. No woman, regardless of experience and qualifications, should be a leader in anything; rather, she should report to a man and have a man over her. And why? Because “that’s her place.”

Funny though, but isn’t that discrimination? And yet, when it comes to the church, suddenly, discrimination isn’t all that bad. When discrimination revolves around the church, isn’t it striking that it is so highly tolerated, taught, and promoted?

This, my friends, is the result of what happens when complementarians “practice what they preach.” And, in my opinion, I think we should see it more often---prayerfully, one day, complementarians will wake up and understand how biblically incorrect, theologically-damaging, and Lord-disdaining their theology of women really is...

A Tribute To My Mother, Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956---Feb. 3, 2009): Martha and Mary

Today at the blog is a day set aside to celebrate the life of my mother, Teressa A. Richardson. For those of you who may not know, mom died at the tender age of 52 years old, having battled breast cancer, lung cancer, and finally brain cancer over a span of some three years. She would have been 54 years old this day.

Today, I’d like to set aside this day to honor mom, the woman who influenced me in so many ways to be the blog writer whose work you read daily. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: without my mother this blog would never have been created. In a sense, whenever I take up a challenge in a post and put words on the screen, it’s as if mom were here speaking them herself.

Preparing for this day was somewhat bittersweet. Some weeks ago, I began to brainstorm regarding what I would post at the blogs to honor mom. And then, I began to go over again and again in my head the type of woman mom was, the things she did, the songs she sung, the lessons she taught me and my twin sister (Danielle), and the funny stories she used to tell. I even have memories of mom’s joke e-mails. She was a senior accountant at her corporation, so she was always over a computer typing, double-checking numbers, sending e-mails, or setting up meetings. I remember the weekends when the corporation would perform what is called “inventory,” when the company had to see how many engines were in the plant (she worked at an engine plant), how many were in good condition (and good for sale), and how many were defective and needed to be rebuilt before they could sale. Mom would take my sister and I to work on random Saturdays, and we would sit at her desk (and the desk of a co-worker), and play card games, surf the web, etc. She always told us to behave ourselves because, should we have misbehaved, we might not have been able to return. According to mom, the more we behaved, the better the chances of getting to come visit her job.

The memories are many indeed...and even now, despite the heartbreak, I can still smile when I think of the three of us (Mom, Danielle, and me) together, laughing until our stomachs hurt. Usually, we were ALWAYS somewhere laughing until our stomachs hurt. To laugh until your insides hurt was a typical action in our insane family.

But mom was not only “mom,” “daughter,” “sister,” “friend,” “coworker,” and “boss”...she was also a Sunday school teacher. Mom bought commentaries galore in her lifetime. We have so many Bibles that there are enough there for twelve future grandchildren and beyond (I might be a little outrageous with the “twelve” there...). Whenever I would come home from school and classes, mom would be sitting at her dining table, pouring over the books. Even when she began to live with my grandmother (her mother) while battling cancer, she was still studying...and she was STILL pouring over the commentaries. She had so many that I had to borrow from her extensive collection! Suffice it to say that, while I attended seminary, mom “owned” a seminary of her own (lol). She told me, upon seeing my first set of books in my Master’s degree, that “I’m gonna read everything you read.” According to mom, her seminary education was coming right to her door through me!

One of mom’s favorite accounts in all of Scripture consists of the account of “Martha and Mary”:

“38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’[k] feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”
41 And Jesus[l] answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42, NKJV)

The account of the text given shows us that there were two sisters, Mary and Martha, who had two different approaches to Jesus’ arrival at the home: while Martha worked hard to serve, Mary sat at Jesus’ feet to hear His teaching. Martha became offended: “Lord, DO YOU NOT CARE that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me” (v.40).

What Martha wanted Jesus to do was scold Mary. In her mind at least, she was doing the “proper” thing while Mary was “being lazy.” In Martha’s reasoning, Jesus had arrived, and it was time to get to work, transforming the house to spotless in order that Jesus may be pleased. What Martha didn’t understand though, was that what pleased Jesus, more than the condition of the home, was THE CONDITION OF THE HEART! Instead of rebuking Mary, Jesus turns and says,

“Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. BUT ONE THING IS NEEDED, and MARY HAS CHOSEN THAT GOOD PART, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41-42).

Martha’s housework was really a “distraction” from what she needed most. Instead of scolding Mary, Martha needed to follow Mary’s example. Jesus’ response to her is that “one thing is needed,” that is, to sit at His feet and listen and learn. Martha, then, was worrying about things of no eternal significance. Her house cleaning would only benefit that day; but Mary’s learning would benefit her for a lifetime. We can easily see the significance of learning at the feet of Jesus over the daily fleeting pursuits that we can easily pour ourselves into.

Mom always felt as if this account was of importance to her. “God’s trying to tell me something,” she would always say. No matter where she went, whether it be to a church service or a bookstore, she always managed to find something on the “Martha and Mary” account. Martha and Mary were everywhere, and some days, she would point out a Martha and Mary book and then laugh. “The Lord just keeps letting me run into this account. What is it that He’s trying to teach me?”

The funny thing is, that when mom was diagnosed with cancer, she began to wonder about her life’s work. “I just wanna make sure that I’m doing what the Lord desires I do. I don’t wanna live my entire life and stand before Him, not having done what I was supposed to.” I used to tell her, “Mom, you won’t. You’re seeking to do what pleases Him most, and believe me, you’re either doing it now or you will get to do it.”

And when she died, I felt as if she had died too soon. I still believe that regardless of the quality of life a person lives (whether in Christ or not), fifty-two years old is still too young of an age in which to die. But my grief over her death was also due to the plans and dreams that I had for us. We had discussed my twin sister, Danielle, and figured that she would marry first (between the two of us). Then, mom and I would travel the world. She always wanted to see other countries, get a chance to travel and witness for Christ. She had such a heart for missions, and winning others to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For her, that was the most exciting thing in all of life itself---to tell others about Jesus. And she did that: she told everyone she could about Him, even a store owner who responded, “I’ve had greater people than you tell me about Him, and I’ve not given in yet.” This same grumpy, old man who was lost and in need of Christ is the same man mom told about Jesus and the gospel. She was fearless for Christ, even in the face of doubt and rejection.

But even though mom died young, she died having done what she was placed on earth to do. I’m convinced that the “Martha and Mary” account was mom’s daily reminder of what was important. Mom had “Martha” traits: she was a parent raising a set of twins; a coworker; a boss who had people to oversee; a daughter, who financially provided for her parents with every paycheck she ever received; a sister, who needed to spend quality time with her brother, sister, and three nephews; a choir member, who often helped to organize the choir for Sundays. Even when she was tired, she would still open her mouth and sing at least one song for Christ. In addition, she was the financial secretary, managing the church finances, as well as a Sunday school teacher, who had souls to instruct from the Word of God. Mom studied for every Sunday school lesson, and taught every class with God-given energy that everyone knew came from above.

Having “Martha” traits, however, didn’t take away from the “Mary” portion: In addition to being a diligent worker for Christ, mom also realized her need to hear the Lord in her daily living and the importance of time spent hearing the Word of the Lord. I would wake up on Sundays to the smell of breakfast pervading the house (from the kitchen to my bedroom and beyond) as well as Sunday preaching on the television screen. That’s how all Sundays started. And if you happened to wake up one morning with no television on, that’s because she had the radio turned on to songs of worship. From the time we’d leave the house to the time we’d return, mom would have worship music on the radio. I was never asked to go to church on Sundays: I was going to church, like it or not. Mom took my instruction in the Word as part of her parental duties (not optional) to “bring me up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4, NKJV). And church was always important. Sundays were set aside for worship, Tuesday nights were set aside for Bible study. No questions asked!!

I miss mom today; and I’ve missed her every day for the last almost year and a half since she departed this life. But I know that when she left us, she had fulfilled her mission on earth. It turns out that the “Martha and Mary” account was one she took to heart, and implemented in all she said and did...and the fact that I am here today, studying the Word of the Lord and researching to the glory of God, testifies to just how important being a “Mary” really was to her. Sure---she was a “Martha”; But she learned how to be a “Mary”. And because she was a Mary and sacrificed much to “sit at Jesus’ feet” (study the Word, hear the Word, teach the Word to her children), she lost no time at all. On that cold February morning when she left us, she was, in that sense, the “oldest” woman in all of human existence.

If mom were here, she’d challenge you to be a “Mary.” So that’s what I’m gonna do: challenge you, my readership, to live as “Mary.” There are many things you will do throughout your lives that will have no eternal significance. But I say to you, that only what you do for Christ will last. And since our work for Christ is the only thing of eternal significance in this world (second to receiving eternal life), then we should be busy kingdom-building. How can we start today? By “sitting at Jesus’ feet,” hearing His Word, learning more of His Word. I tell you today that if we learn from my mother’s (Mary’s) example, death will take from us no time at all.

A Chinese Lunch

Today I did lunch with a dear brother of mine. We had been trying to meet up together all semester, to take some time to discuss our favorite area of discussion--- THEOLOGY! So we finally met up and did a Chinese lunch today. Boy am I so glad to have brothers!!!

Our first topic of conversation involved evangelism and how to present the gospel to someone who does not believe in God and has no concern for learning about this God we believe in at all. But eventually, the conversation took a turn down a road that he and I both knew we would arrive at; and we ended up discussing two issues that seem to really flow together: the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism (see my blog at CTS regarding the nature of this debate) and...an issue I love here very much: the issue of men and women in the church.

We began by discussing 1 Timothy 2, a passage that, as I’ve established, has been viewed by complementarians as a passage that “decisively” (their own words) kills the issue of whether or not women should lead in the church. I took my dear brother back to 1 Corinthians 11, another passage that talks about some form of creation order. There, I showed him that men and women are BOTH dependent “in the Lord.” The sphere of God’s house is the place where men and women are functionally equal, despite the woman’s functional submission to her husband in the home. Even the husband has no independence from the wife in the church (according to 1 Cor. 11:11-12)!

Then he asked me the question, “Does dependence nullify authority?” I told him that the husband has been given headship in the home, but God holds the headship of the church, and is free to do what He pleases in His House (Eph. 5:23). If Christ is the head of the church, and headship in the church belongs to Christ, then why does the Bride have to argue over which “bride” (member) of the Bride (Church) should lead?

Finally, my brother looked at me and said that he understands the differences between Calvinists (who are also complementarians) and Arminians (egalitarians): those who are Calvinists are more likely to be complementarians because they see that God chooses not only those who will be saved, but also chooses what gender (and as a result of gender, what gifts) a person will have. Arminians, on the other hand, who believe that everything is foreknown but not predetermined (chosen beforehand), see some indeterminate aspects to life itself, that everything is not picked out by God. In his mindset, Arminians, therefore, would choose to argue for women’s equal leadership opportunities in the church.

I think there is some truth to what he is saying regarding theology; however, I don’t think that a theological grid is the most important reason why the line divides along Calvinist (complementarian) and Arminian (egalitarian) lines. The most important factor that creates the divide is the biblical text. For me as both a Classical Arminian and a conservative egalitarian, I see the Bible itself as the dividing line. I cannot agree with complementarian argumentation because ultimately, they draw “inferences” to the biblical text without sufficient biblical proof. If God truly desired to tell women what they could not do in the church, why is it not as clear as the divine command for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5)?? It seems that the Holy Spirit, the Author of Holy Scripture, was not hesitant when He wanted to communicate to wives the need to submit to husbands. If complementarians are so right about women in leadership, why is the Spirit extremely silent on this issue? And why is it that the church has to “draw inferences” instead of drawing from Scripture? If “the simplest answer is often the best explanation,” then the answer to the question is “the Spirit does not make prohibition of woman leadership clear because He does not desire to prohibit women from leadership in the church."

In his chapter on “Human Nature” in the work “A Theology for the Church,” John Hammett writes regarding 1 Timothy 2:

“The passage begins with a call to let women learn, a somewhat revolutionary idea in some parts of the Mediterranean world of that time. But, Paul continues, women should not teach or exercise authority over a man. BUT HOW DOES THIS TEXT RELATE TO ROLES IN THE CHURCH? It seems clear from elsewhere in Scripture that THIS IS NOT A BLANKET PROHIBITION. For example, believers are commanded to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16), and Paul gives instructions concerning the praying and prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:2-16). CONTEXT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE TYPE OF TEACHING AND AUTHORITY PAUL HAS IN MIND IS THAT OF AN ELDER, for the qualifications for that office is the topic Paul turns to in 1 Timothy 3, and the duties of an elder include authoritative teaching and leading. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits women from serving in the role of elder or pastor” (John Hammett, “Human Nature,” from “A Theology for the Church” by Daniel L. Akin, editor. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 359).

But Hammett’s analysis here is rather subjective. Do we even read of women and elder in the same sentence in 1 Timothy 3? No. The issue of women teaching, then, is to first be investigated within the chapter of its location (which is chapter 2). Next, what about chapter 1? Hammett invests time on why women can’t teach according to chapter 3, but overlooks chapter 1 entirely. Hammett does not address the problems Paul does: (1) false teachers (1:3) and false doctrine (1:3), which consisted of “fables and endless genealogies” (1:4), as well as (2) students who desired to teach but were propagating false doctrine ignorantly (1:7). If these problems were to be incorporated into interpretation, then 1 Timothy 2 would be seen as Paul counteracting false teaching, not prohibiting women from serving in leadership roles. Hammett doesn’t address any of these mentionables of chapter 1. Why is this? It’s an interesting question indeed...

Last but not least, there is the question regarding women teaching: if women are ONLY prohibited from the office of elder and pastor (which seems to be Hammett’s conclusion), then are women prohibited from teaching men in a mixed Sunday school class? I find it fascinating that Hammett doesn’t argue against women teaching mixed Sunday school classes, and yet, so many churches prohibit women from so doing. Why is this? If scholars are not prohibiting women teaching, then why are so many churches prohibiting women from teaching? Although Hammett states that “this [1 Tim. 2] is not a blanket prohibition,” the churches sure seem convinced that it is...

Aside from Hammett’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, however, Hammett does make a good point about the weak argument from inference:

“Some complementarians think that the order established by God in marriage should also be an argument for a similar order within the church. Thus, just as women cannot be husbands or fathers in the family, so they cannot (or at least should not) be elders or pastors within the larger family, the church. While this view has a good deal of merit, WE ARE NOT LEFT TO SUCH AN INFERENTIAL ARGUMENT” (358).

Even Hammett admits that the above complementarian “consistency” is nothing more than an inference. And if the argument is just an inference, then we are left to Scripture to see what it tells us. And even the evidence against women as pastors (including Hammett’s analysis) is questionable.

Back to the Chinese lunch. At the end of the lunch time, I realized that my brother simply did not have a biblical text for his case. All he had was a collection of inferential arguments with no Scripture as justification. If Scripture provides no evidence against women, then the “traditional” view of complementarianism is nothing more than tradition; and if we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in every area of life, then we must either elevate tradition to Scripture or toss tradition out. And I know which one I choose...how about you?

The Rebel Bride: A Response to the Charge of Inconsistency

Some time ago, a friend of mine (who has been struggling with the issue of whether or not women should be elders and pastors in the modern-day church) told me that he doesn’t see evidence in the New Testament for women in pastoral leadership. His reason? According to him (and those who have instructed him), the creation order (which he believes 1 Timothy 2:12-15 teaches). My response to his statement was that if 1 Timothy 2 said what he believed it did, why is it that we read so much of wife submission (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1), but do not read of the submission of women to men in the church? The Scriptures, however, do command that the sheep of the flock submit to those who lead in the church (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but it never directly tells women to be submissive to the men of the church. Instead, what we find is that women, like men, prayed and prophesied publicly in the early church (1 Cor. 11:5), and women even served as apostles (Junia, Rom. 16:7). Women such as Phoebe were active as not only recognized workers of the church, but even as ambassadors or representatives to other churches (Rom. 16:1-2). Contrary to the belief of most complementarians, women even conducted churches in their homes (such as Nympha, Col. 4:15). Last but not least, women such as Euodia and Syntyche served side-by-side with Paul in preaching the gospel (Phil. 4:2-3). All this evidence cannot be a biblical “mistake.” No---it serves as an incredible witness to the role women played both in the church itself and outside of it. And all of this New Testament evidence doesn’t even mention the great prophetesses (such as Huldah) and judge (Deborah) of the Old Testament!!

In this post, I wanna tackle the issue of inconsistency. It has been said that conservative egalitarians are inconsistent when they advocate male headship in the home but teamwork leadership (both male and female) in the church. I was labeled “inconsistent” by my friend above, when I made this same statement to him.

But I would like to stop and pose this question to complementarians everywhere? How are conservative egalitarians inconsistent for their view? The Bible is what decides inconsistency, not my logic. If the Scriptures do not point out the error of egalitarianism, then its position is just as valid (if not more than) as complementarianism.

What do the Scriptures say? That’s the kind of question I like to hear...to answer this question, let’s look at the Bible.

As I mentioned above, the Bible confirms male headship in the home. A good example of this is Ephesians 5:22---

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD.” (NKJV)

As this verse tells us, wives are to submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to the very Lord Himself. The husband has been given headship in the home. This is undisputed amongst complementarians and conservative egalitarians. I mention “conservative” egalitarians because there are liberal egalitarians (some are called “feminists”) who assert that male headship must be overthrown. While I sympathize with feminists and their mistreatment by male authorities, I cannot say that I agree with them. God has given the male headship in the home, whether you and I like it or not. If the Bible is the Word of God, then we must accept everything in it (whether or not it fits a preference of ours or not).

Having said that, though, the next question would be, “Does the Bible confirm male headship in the church?” the answer to this question would be a resounding no!! Let’s read further in the text of Ephesians 5:

“For the husband is THE HEAD OF THE WIFE, as also Christ is THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23, NKJV).

Here we see that, while the husband is the head of the home, his headship stops there; Christ is the head of the church, and He will share His place with NOONE! So for complementarians hung up over male headship, check Ephesians 5:23. Nowhere does it affirm the male as the head of the church. So if the male is not the head of the church, then what is he in the church? Part of the bride. As Paul writes in Ephesians 5:29-30,

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, JUST AS THE LORD DOES THE CHURCH. FOR WE ARE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY, of His flesh and of His bones.”

No matter the gender, whether male or female, both genders comprise “the body of Christ.” Christ is the head, and we are the body. And the head is greater than the body, so Christ is Lord over and above all of us, whether male or female, whether Pastor, Elder, Deacon, choir member, nursery worker, etc.

Now that Ephesians 5 has cleared the air, one more question remains: Is the conservative egalitarian consistent in his/her view of male headship in the home and teamwork leadership in the church? Yes. The answer is found in the husband-wife analogy of both home and church relationships. Let’s revisit Ephesians 5:23 once more:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church...”

Here we see the “husband-wife” analogy in both spheres. In the home, the male is the husband, and the female is the wife. In the church, Christ is the husband (the head), and the church is the wife, the Bride. We can see this in verse 25:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER” (Eph. 5:25).

The church, then, is the Bride of Christ (Christ being the husband). This is why the church in the Greek is an “ekklesia,” the “ia” ending serving as a “feminine” noun ending. Paul continues this analogy further in the same chapter:

“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH” (Eph. 5:31-32).

So the verse Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24 he now tells us refers to Christ and the church. So the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is the Husband of the church.

Where then, is the inconsistency? We’ve seen that between male and female (and between Christ and church) that there is a husband and a wife established in both spheres. So, I ask complementarians, “What’s the problem?” Don’t worry: I think I know what it is...they continue to desire to replace women in the church because of a presupposition concerning 1 Timothy 2. But if Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Christ is the head of the church, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that the Spirit gives spiritual gifts “as He wills,” then how can complementarians continue to assert that 1 Tim. 2 refers to male leadership in the church? I think this is a fitting time for complementarians to step back and take a look at their scriptural interpretation. If you ask me, I think their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 needs some serious reform...and the church needs to stop playing “rebel bride” and submit to her Husband (that is, Christ) by allowing Him to decide the giftedness of the church instead of the church herself.