"Women Teaching Men the Bible: What's the
Problem?"[1]
A
Response
Sandy
Grant
The ordination of women to the Anglican presbyterate has
again become a matter of debate in the Diocese of Sydney, in which I serve. So
I read Graham Cole's recent paper with interest.[2]
As he noted, especially on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12, many have argued that
"since preaching and teaching the Bible is fundamental to leadership in
the church women cannot therefore lead congregations."[3]
Dr Cole's own view on the
question is that "these days it is appropriate for women to preach to
mixed congregations if they faithfully expound the Scriptures. In other words
godliness and giftedness are the keys and not one's sex."[4]
As a former student of Graham Cole, I have been helped by
many things he has taught. So I am always interested to read his thoughts.
However, on this occasion I differ from a number of the arguments he has
mounted and hence from his conclusion.
However at the outset, I wish to acknowledge several
helpful points Cole made. I found these to be valuable reminders relevant to
all sides in the debate:
i.
There is the warning that, "Some can so stress male
leadership of the congregation and denomination it is as though our Lord is on
leave and is not effectively the head of the church, which is his body."[5]
I acknowledge this is a possibility. When one wishes to defend a point judged
to be of importance, another important matter may be inadvertently
de-emphasised. However, I am not aware of any complementarians who have done
this in actuality. So I am sure all sides in the debate wish to vigorously
agree with Cole that Jesus the Messiah, the Lord himself, is the one and only
head of the church.
ii.
I was also helpfully reminded that in the NT era, households
were far more complex than our nuclear family in the modern West, such that
there could be female-headed households with male slaves having to defer to
them. In this context, I found suggestive Cole's endnote (7) indicating that
the qualification required in 1 Timothy 3 of an overseer and of a deacon –
to be able to manage their household well – was a call for managerial skill
since the households were larger social units. For all that, Paul still had
very definite ideas of relationships within households (husband/wife,
parent/child, master/slave).
iii.
A third helpful insight came in Cole's view that "Paul's
prohibition is occasional rather than transoccasional. I prefer the
distinction between occasional and transoccasional in the context of this
debate as it is less question begging than the usual one of transcultural and
cultural" [6].
I think this is an excellent suggestion from Cole.
By way of affirmation, I would add that key NT characters
could be extremely counter-cultural when it mattered, such as Jesus with the
Samaritan woman, and Paul with Jew-Gentile table fellowship. Further, in the
Bible, God speaks through human authors to specific human situations. But in
those same words, God reveals himself as perfectly capable of speaking through
them to later generations in very different cultures (E.g. 1 Cor 10:1-11). So
the main scriptural reason given for not re-applying something from earlier in
the Bible at a later point is not cultural differences,
but the coming of Christ and his impact in fulfilling the law (e.g. Col
2:13-17). So (with Cole, I believe) I agree that our default setting should be
to view the Bible as addressing us effectively across cultures, not as bound
by culture. We are perfectly capable of retaining a scriptural principle while
adjusting the application to a different culture. Therefore in our culture, we
greet people with a holy handshake instead of a kiss!
Before I turn to my points of critique, I also
acknowledge that Cole has indicated that his paper was a brief sketch of seven
"lines of consideration" on the matter and did not provide full
theological and exegetical argumentation in support.
I will try to reply at a similar level, although, as with Cole's paper,
the distinction is relative, not absolute. I will address each of Cole's
considerations in turn.
Consideration 1: Authority
comes from God and his Word
Cole makes what sounds like an absolute disjunction here.
"First, authority comes from God and his Word and not in any part from
the sex of the preacher."[7]
One may agree that a preacher's authority comes from
faithful explanation and application of God's Word and not from his or her
gender. However, it is not possible to so thoroughly disentangle the authority
of the preached word from the person of the preacher, as if the latter were
entirely irrelevant. Paul commands Timothy and Titus themselves to teach and
speak the truths of the faith with authority (1 Timothy 4:11; Titus 2:15). So
it is not true that the NT teacher or leader has no authority (cf. 1 Thess
5:12; Heb 13:17). Further, Paul explains that their life and example is
important in regards to this ministry (1 Tim 4:12, 4:16; Titus 2:7).
So the primary authority for teachers is, of course, the
written Word of God. But in a secondary sense, teachers are invested with
authority because of congregational recognition of their personal godliness
and trustworthiness as teachers of that Word.
Along lines similar to Cole, Gilbert Bilezikian once
suggested that following the closing of the canon, current day teachers are
the equivalent of "sexless teaching machines".[8]
But instead, as Wayne Grudem counters, "They are real people, who, in the
whole of their character and personhood, teach and model for the church."[9]
Certainly the Pastoral Epistles reveal that
considerations of age and gender were important for teaching in the context of
intra-congregational relationships. In particular, a younger man needed to
take special care in how he conducted himself (Titus 2:1-8; 1 Tim 4:12,
5:1-2).
Therefore, since gender is part of our personhood, one
would be wise before dismissing it as irrelevant to the debate at hand,
especially when Paul explicitly makes an issue of it, in different ways, at a
number of points (1 Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:8-15).
Consideration 2: 1
Corinthians 11:3 and Trinitarian Taxis (Order)
Here Cole notes that "Paul does not write that the
head of the Son is the Father, but that the head of Christ is God".[10]
He then explains that this is a messianic reference and refers to the economic
rather than the essential Trinity. He asserts that this verse should be
grouped alongside of 1 Cor 3:21-23 and 1 Cor 15:24-28 as Ôsubordinationist'
texts which refer only to the economy of salvation.
What Cole does not mention is that the parallel text in 1
Cor 15:24-28 does in fact refer to the "Father" (v24) and the
"Son" (v28), and not just to God and Christ. This rather weakens his
case that these are simply economic references. Indeed from these latter
verses, it certainly appears at the very least that the economic subordination
continues into eternity.[11]
Certainly great care is required in discussing the matter
of order within the Trinity. Yet what is undeniable is that many orthodox
theologians have long recognised some sense of order or taxis within the
relations of the essential Trinity. For example, this has been recognised in
the creedal phrase "eternally begotten of the Father".[12]
Further many theologians have recognised a danger in
suggesting an absolute disjunction between the economic and essential Trinity,
such that the way God is towards us tells us nothing of the way he is in
himself. Cole could have noted this
by citing more recognised proponents and more thorough statements of this
alternate view that the order within the Trinity is relevant to this debate
than the paper he mentioned by Carrie Sandom.[13]
Consideration 3: Women Teaching Men and Good Church
Order
Here Cole says he is "not persuaded that a woman
preaching to a mixed congregation somehow threatens good church order"[14].
To establish this point he explains that the NT only knows of one head of the
church, Jesus Christ and secondly that NT households were far more complex
than modern Western nuclear families. I have mentioned my appreciation of
these reminders above.
However, in opposing one over-simplification (about the
nature of NT households) he appears to supply another (namely that of the sole
headship of Jesus Christ in the church). Surely Cole does not mean by this
warning that the church is to have none in positions of leadership.
The fact remains that the one head of the church, Jesus
Christ, himself appointed others to positions of leadership in teaching his
Word among his people, namely the Twelve Apostles (all male), during his
earthly ministry. More broadly, for example in Ephesians 4:11-16, he gifts to
the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. So Jesus
exercises his headship through his ordering of the church, which includes the
appointment of teachers and leaders.
And where one of his apostles gave instructions regarding
those to be appointed overseers within the church, Paul specified that they
were to be male (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). He also explicitly stated that he
did not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man (1 Timothy
2:11-12). On what grounds may we say that the instructions we have received
from Christ's apostle are not part of Christ's ordering of his church?
Consideration 4: The Invention of the Printing Press
Cole does not actually say much about the significance of
the printing press, beyond the fact that Christians today have much wider and
easier access to the Scriptures. Instead, under this heading, his focus is
actually on the fact that our situation is different materially
from Christians in first century Ephesus hearing 1 Timothy read, before the
completion of the canon of Scripture.
We have the completed Bible. According to Cole's
reckoning at most they only had a copy of the OT (probably LXX), a letter or
two from Paul, and Timothy and the local elders to talk to. He quotes J.I.
Packer as suggesting that there is a significant difference between teaching
now and then, which raises questions over whether Paul would have forbidden a
woman to teach men from the Bible today.[15]
Several questions occur here. The first is to ask whether
the Scriptures themselves give any hint that the closing of the canon (let
alone the invention of the printing press) would be a significant turning
point in terms of reducing the level of authority inhering in the teaching
ministry thereafter. I am not aware of any such evidence.
A second question is whether Cole has understated the
amount of the Word of God which was already available in an inscripturated
form. The Epistle of 1 Timothy itself, in 1 Tim 5:18 with an exact verbal
parallel to Luke 10:7, shows a familiarity with a saying of Jesus. There is
significant other evidence that written and oral collections of material
concerning Jesus were in circulation by the time of the writing of 1 Timothy.[16]
Likewise, there is evidence of the circulation of primitive creedal statements
to guide the early churches (e.g. in 1 Tim 3:16). The public reading of
Scripture was also to form a key part of Timothy's regulative teaching
ministry (1 Tim 4:13; cf. 2 Tim 3:15-17). The NT Scriptures were beginning to
circulate and be known.
Most significant here, though, is the point Cole
concedes: that formally the Ephesians
were in exactly the same situation as modern Christians. That is, both are
under the authority of the Word of God. Teaching at different stages of
salvation history has always been based on the authority of the Scriptures, no
matter how much of those Scriptures were available.[17]
So the content of NT teaching is consistently linked to the Word of God, to
the Scriptures (e.g. See Acts 15:35 18:11, Heb 5:12, 2 Tim 3:15-17.) Contrary
to Cole's suggestion, the authority of the teacher then and now is the same.
Consideration 5: 1 Timothy 2:12 Not a Barrier
In Cole's view, the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 was an
occasional one (as opposed to being transoccasional). It had to do with urging
the Ephesian women to learn via proper teaching structure – Timothy and the
teaching elders – based on Paul's apostolic teaching (which is now preserved
in the canonical NT Scriptures, and much more widely available than then, as
previously noted by Cole).
In addition, the restriction came because of a particular
pastoral crisis due to the presence of false teachers. The injunction in 1 Tim
2:12 was to stop the women learning from the wrong teachers (as Eve had done).
Indeed, Cole suggests Paul more greatly circumscribes communications at
Ephesus than elsewhere (such as 1 Corinthians), such that most of the other
men are not to teach either, because of this problem.[18]
It appears to me that there are many question marks over
Cole's argument at this point.
For a start, there is no indication that the only people
in Ephesus with access to God's Word were Timothy and the elders. Acts 19:10
indicates that Paul's public teaching ministry there was over two years long.
Indeed in Acts 20:31, Paul himself said that his teaching ministry was
ceaseless over three years. In Acts 20:20 he said that he had declared
everything that was helpful from house to house, as well as in public, and in
20:27 that he had declared the whole counsel of God. Indeed one might argue
that Ephesus was the site of Paul's most thorough and extensive teaching
ministry recorded anywhere in the entire New Testament.
Further, I agree with Cole that it was likely 1 Timothy
would have been read aloud in a congregational setting and that Paul wished
his defence of the apostolic gospel and his pattern of ministry to be heard by
others (as hinted at by the plural Ôyou' in 1 Tim 6:21). But hearing this
material implicitly invites them into the process of discernment against the
false teaching.
Likewise the fact that Timothy could be called to public
reading of the Scriptures (1 Tim 4:12) indicates that the Ephesians could use
the Scriptures as a yardstick, alongside "the words of the faith"
and "the good doctrine" (1 Tim 4:6) that Timothy had followed and
that Paul had clearly established among them.[19]
It will not do to say that the Ephesian women or the Ephesians in general were
particularly ignorant compared to other NT communities.
Secondly there are many problems with the suggestion that
there was a particular problem with women in Ephesus, as Cole seems to
realise. As he himself notes, the only people actually named as problems in
regards to false teaching and the faith are men
(Hymenaeus and Alexander, 1 Tim 1:20; similarly in 2 Tim 2:17-18 and Acts
20:30[20].)
Nor is there any good evidence to suggest that women were teaching false
doctrine at Ephesus.[21]
Further, when Paul wishes to silence false teachers, he
is perfectly capable of identifying those he wishes silenced, without
silencing all men (or all women). This is what he does by his charge in 1 Tim
1:3 when he commands Timothy to "remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain
persons not to teach any different doctrine" (ESV, my emphasis; cf. Titus
1:9-11). He never forbids all men (nor all women) from teaching because some
of their gender were false teachers. Indeed, such a solution would not appear
to be just.
Cole suggests women in Ephesus were to learn only through
the Pauline teaching structure, which at the time of writing 1 Timothy
included no women. In endnote 13, Cole guesses that Timothy only appoints male
elders because no women were heads of households in Ephesus at that time. This
is speculation – pure and simple – and cannot be relied on. Indeed, it is
perhaps a little ironic, given that it is Cole who has already raised the
possibility of female-headed households existing in that era, back in his
third consideration.
However, it is important to note the particular case of
Priscilla, alongside her husband Aquila, for this provides further evidence
about the status of women at Ephesus.
Paul had already worked alongside this couple in Corinth
(Acts 18:2-4), and had left them in Ephesus (Acts 18:19) following his first
brief visit. Prior to Paul's return to Ephesus, Priscilla and Aquila had
"invited [Apollos] to their home and explained to him the way of God more
adequately" (Acts 18:26). So they jointly exercised a discrete personal
(not public) teaching ministry. Clearly Priscilla was a well-instructed woman
and able to teach in this context.
There is every reason to believe that Priscilla and
Aquila continued in Ephesus when Paul arrived for his three year teaching
stretch. They later left for Rome, but as Cole agrees, by the time of the
writing of 2 Timothy 4:19, Priscilla and Aquila had returned to Ephesus. 1
Timothy was only written a year or two before 2 Timothy. So there is a genuine
possibility that the well-taught Priscilla was even present in Ephesus at the
time Paul wrote 1 Timothy.
Here is evidence of at least one woman who had spent
significant time in Ephesus, in whom Paul obviously had confidence regarding
her knowledge of the Word of God. This scarcely supports the thesis that there
were no women present in Ephesus who were likely to be suitable as public
teachers or elders should gender be no barrier. And yet, there is no evidence
at all in the Scriptures that Priscilla ever exercised a public teaching
ministry.
In conclusion on this point, in his consideration of 1
Tim 2:12, Cole seems to have substituted reasons not given in the text –
that women there lacked education, or were prone to false teaching, or were
not part of the approved teaching structure – for the reason Paul himself
gives in vv13-14 – that Adam was formed firstÉ but Eve was deceived.
Consideration 6: The Problem of Primitivism
Cole identifies the problem of primitivism as being an
unrealistic and often inconsistent attempt to set up NT patterns of church
order as though our world coincides with that of the NT.[22]
As evidence of such inconsistency, he wonders why a church he attended which
prohibited women from preaching did not also have a welfare system to look
after widows, as found in 1 Timothy 5.
My response here is to repeat that one can distinguish
between upholding a principle and varying applications of the principle, as
mentioned above with modes of greeting. So in that spirit, encouraged by 1
Timothy 5 (and James 1:27 and Acts 6:1ff) I would suggest that churches should
consider culturally appropriate systems of welfare (e.g. taking into account
the particular society's provision of welfare) for widows and other vulnerable
people in their congregations (such as orphans or refugees). The problem is
not too much effort in doing as the NT suggests, but too little! We may not
use a list identical to that in 1 Timothy 5, but we uphold the scriptural
principle. And as a matter of fact, some churches do even keep a roll of sorts
for the pastoral and practical care of the frail aged in their midst.
In an endnote here (16), Cole also cites the fact that
the patterns of NT church life were not monochrome as an indicator of the
difficulty of determining what was normative. By implication, we cannot assume
comments about gender were normative. As evidence, he notes that elders are
not mentioned in 1 Corinthians, elders only are mentioned in Titus, and elders
and deacons are mentioned in 1 Timothy. He also asserts that Jerusalem based
Christianity seems to have developed differently under James.
This last point seems a little odd, given that the
Jerusalem church clearly had elders (e.g. present in Acts 15), and also gives
us the first example of those appointed to "deacon" at tables (Acts
6:2)! One might further note the mention of overseers and deacons in
Philippians 1:1 and the suggestive distinction of speaking and serving
ministries in 1 Peter 4:11 alongside the instructions to elders in 1 Peter
5:1-4. So there seems to be some common patterns of eldership and serving
ministries, rather than endless variation. At the least, the fact that there
appears to have been some variation
does not justify endless
variation, nor variation that contradicts a statement of principle, such as 1
Tim 2:12. In any event, there are no examples in the NT of such a variation as
a woman publicly teaching the Bible to men.
Consideration 7: The Matter of Dogmatic Rank
Here Cole raises the question of how important this
matter is theologically. He irenically mentions that evangelical
complementarians and evangelical egalitarians are having an Ôin-house'
debate. Further he says the question of women preaching to mixed congregations
is a matter of order and not of faith, such that it should not be a condition
of Christian fellowship.[23]
I appreciate Cole's affirmation of respect for
evangelical complementarians with whom he disagrees and likewise affirm my own
respect for his high view of Scripture. This means we should each be open to
changing our minds because of what the Bible actually says.
However, I am not aware that evangelical complementarians
have commonly made this issue a "condition of Christian fellowship".
In some places one's view on the matter has been made a condition of
eligibility for leadership (in both directions), but this is not the same as
making it a condition for fellowship. (One's view on God's sovereignty or
baptism or church government may also affect one's eligibility for leadership
in certain evangelical denominations and associations.) So this concern
appears to me something of a straw man.
Moreover, although the dispute can be called Ôin-house'
when between evangelicals, the dispute often goes much more widely. For
example, within my own Anglican denomination, it is a debate involving those
of other theological positions (e.g. anglo-catholic and liberal), including
some who implicitly or explicitly deny the final authority of Scripture on
this matter. Cole has tried to avoid this. But sometimes, it is worrying to
hear evangelical egalitarians use forms of arguments with which liberals have
a great sympathy, and which they have sometimes utilised for other purposes.
At any rate, when the authority of God's Word is involved, the issue does
become a matter of great importance.
Conclusion
Gender goes to the heart of our being and relationships,
and as Cole notes, pastorally it can be very important. Likewise, matters of
prayer and teaching are fundamental to the faith. So again, I do not believe
that this matter can be simply relegated to a matter of secondary or tertiary
importance. It is a matter that must be decided on the basis of what the Bible
says.
Cole twice cites the example of the noble Bereans who
"examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was
true" (Acts 17:11). Yet he does not seem to notice the irony of this
reference. In his paper, he has relied on the claim that prior to the
completion of the NT canon, the Ephesians did not have enough of the
Scriptures available to enable women to exercise such a discernment process.[24]
How then could the Bereans do it, when they had no more of the Scriptures
available than the Ephesians? Yet clearly, Cole thinks the Bereans could do
it.[25]
It is their example of searching the Scriptures that he says we should
imitate.
In this regard, from the beginning, the Bible says that
men and women are made equally in God's image, yet with complementary, but
non-identical purposes in mind (Gen 1:27; 2:15, 18). Both in marriage (Eph
5:22-33, Col 3:18-19, 1 Pet 3:1-7) and in the church (1 Cor
11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:8-3:7; Titus 2:5-9), distasteful though it
be to contemporary culture, there is a pattern of male headship/leadership
which is established and upheld. In these contexts, comments are consistently
made rooting these injunctions not in occasional or cultural particularities,
but on the basis of the created order, and also as a reflection of the ordered
relationships within the Trinity, and the relationship of Christ and the
church.
Cole himself agrees that the best complementarian
arguments about these texts are valid in that the elements hang together
logically.[26]
On the other hand, Cole several times admits relying on guess, reconstruction
and speculation to make his argument that 1 Tim 2:12's prohibition on women
teaching men the Bible is occasional and no longer relevant.
In this paper, I have tried to suggest why I think this
is unwise and to point out some flaws I perceive in his arguments.
My own conclusion, then, that Scripture does not allow a
woman to preach to a mixed congregation and so ordination to the eldership of
a congregation ought not to be allowed. There have been no recent exegetical
or hermeneutical studies to convince me otherwise.
Sandy Grant
Wollongong
October 2006
Annotated Complementarian Reading List
These books are all
available from Koorong or Moore Books. But the publishers and authors of much
of the latest scholarship from a complementarian perspective have made it
freely to download as pdf files.
Wayne
Grudem
Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than
One Hundred Disputed Questions
(Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 2004).
J.I.Packer (Regent College) says, "Laboriously and exhaustively,
with clarity, charity, and a scholar's objectivity, Wayne Grudem sifts through
118 current challenges to the Bible's apparent teaching on men and women. This
is the fullest and most informative analysis available, and no one will be
able to deny the cumulative strength of the case
this author makes, as he vindicates the older paths."
Available freely as a pdf from http://www.efbt100.com.
Wayne
Grudem (ed.)
Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002)
This book includes some of the latest scholarship on such matters as
the meaning of submission and the Greek term kephalŽ
("head"); the significance of Gal 3:28 and of the intra-Trinitarian
relationships for debate; as well as the historical novelty of egalitarian
views. Available freely as a pdf from http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books.php
– at the time of writing, it is the first book listed there.
Andreas
Kšstenberger Women
in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand
Rapids,
et
al. (eds)
Michigan: Baker, 1995, 2nd ed. 2005)
Peter O'Brien (Moore College) says, "This is a series of
grammatical, linguistic, exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological essays.
Together with its appendix on the history of interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, it
is one of the most comprehensive treatments to date on the subject. The essays
are not simply a rehash of old arguments. At significant points they make an
original contribution to our knowledge."
In the second edition (2005), each chapter has apparently been updated
and reworked, and a new chapter of pastoral application has been added.
John
Piper and
Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to
Evangelical
Wayne
Grudem (eds)
Feminism (Wheaton,
Illinois: Crossway, 1991)
A watershed book from a complementarian perspective in the modern
debates. Now older, but worth it alone for Piper's Chapter 1 "Manhood and
Womanhood Defined According to the Bible". Available freely as a pdf from
http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/index.php.
[1]
Graham A. Cole, "Women Teaching Men the Bible: What's the
Problem?", BriefCACE #34, 2006. I originally found this paper on the
Ridley College website. It appears to have been removed from there (for
reasons unknown to me). A version of the paper, with apparently identical
text but different formatting, is available from http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2006/08/Women
to preach.pdf. I cite page numbers from the former version.
[2]
I am especially responding to Cole's paper because it was drawn to my
attention by a congregation member at St Michael's Anglican Cathedral,
Wollongong, which I serve as Senior Minister. She is in favour of the
ordination of women to the presbyterate and sought my response. I am also
responding, because this paper was cited in a web forum to which I
contributed, "Raising Boys and Girls in a Unisex Culture". This
discussion thread ranged more broadly over matters to do with differences
between the genders. It can be viewed at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=2100.
Since then, I have become aware that Cole has delivered a version of this
paper elsewhere, for example, in May 2006, at Oak Hill College in the UK.
[3]
Cole, p1.
[4]
Cole, p1.
[5]
Cole, p2.
[6]
Cole, endnote 14, p5.
[7]
Cole, p1.
[8]
Gilbert Bilezikian, p 184, Beyond Sex Roles
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2nd ed, 1985)
[9]
Wayne Grudem, p275, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
(Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 2004)
[10]
Cole, p2.
[11]
In fact, even if there is only an economic subordination here, it is still
used as the basis for establishing an order between men and women. So it has
never been obvious to me why this economic subordination can be disregarded.
Surely we are still living within the economy of salvation and should heed
the ordering relevant in that economy!
[12]
Even egalitarian, Craig Keener, affirms an eternal subordination of the Son
to the Father in "Is Subordination Within the Trinity Really Heresy? A
Study of John 5:18 in Context," Trin J
20 NS (1999); pp39-51.
[13]
For details, consult Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture,
History, Theology, and Worship
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004), especially on this
matter, his Appendixes 1 & 2. Also in relation to these particular
issues of the Trinity, see Grudem, Evangelical Feminism,
pp 405-29.
[14]
Cole, p2.
[15]
Cole, p2. Note that in the article cited, Packer does not say this is
definitely the case, just that it is an open question. In a noted later
article, "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters," Christianity
Today (Feb 11, 1991), pp18-21, J.I.
Packer clearly opposes the ordination of women to the presbyterate.
[16]
At a popular level, see John Dickson The Christ Files (Sydney:
BlueBottle Books, 2006).
[17]
It is important to distinguish between the authority of the Apostles and
that of NT teachers. A teacher's authority was never as significant and
normative as that of the Apostles, whose authority has been transferred into
the apostolic writings which form the NT.
[18]
Cole, p3.
[19]
Compare 2 Tim 2:2. Here Paul notes the "many witnesses" who were
present when Paul entrusted gospel truths to Timothy, presumably as a
reminder of the public nature of Christian teaching.
[20]
In Acts 20:30, Paul warns the Ephesian elders that "from your own
number men will arise and
distort the truth". N.B. he uses the Greek for "male human" (anŽr)
rather than the generic term for humanity (anthr—pos).
[21]
See Grudem, Evangelical Feminism,
pp282-84. Nor is there any good evidence that women were particularly poorly
educated in Ephesus such that they should not teach, Grudem, Evangelical
Feminism, pp288-95.
[22]
Cole, p4.
[23]
Cole, p4.
[24]
Refer especially to his considerations 4 and 5, detailed above.
[25]
I am indebted to my colleague, Lionel Windsor, for the observation in this
paragraph.
[26]
Cole, p5, footnote 12. Please note that the logic of 1 Tim 2:11-15 hangs
together simply with Genesis 2-3. Contrary to the implication in Cole's
footnote, 1 Timothy 2 makes no mention at all of the Trinity. So the
validity of the complementarian argument here does not rely on the idea of
the eternal Ôsubjection' of the Father to the Son, which Cole sees as so
problematic. It stands without it, although it is consistent with it.