What does scripture say? A Critique of: “Male and female in the Lord – Biblical principles and instruction”, The Testimony, January 2020 pages 3-7, by Ian McHaffie*

What does Scripture say?

The following is a critique of: “Male and female in the Lord – Biblical principles and instruction”, The Testimony, January 2020 pages 3-7

I don’t like criticising the work of other people, and in doing so I am conscious of Paul’s teaching:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.       (Philippians 2:3-4, KJV)

Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.                                                (Philippians 2:3-4, RSV)

However, it is important to analyse arguments which are published and distributed to brothers and sisters in Christ. The comments below are offered in the spirit of Philippians 2.

I hope that my comments will make a useful contribution to the discussions currently taking place in many ecclesias on how brothers and sisters can properly and Scripturally work together in the service of our Lord.

The original Testimony text is printed below in blue in Palatino

and is indented.

My comments are in black in Times New Roman.

Biblical quotations are in black in Arial and indented.

Mostly I have used RSV, as in The Testimony article.

Sometimes I cite NIV (2011 version) and NRSV.

“Male and female in the Lord – Biblical principles and instruction”,

The Testimony, January 2020 pages 3-7

Comment (1) The heading which introduces the article begins well.

Whatever our instinctive views about the issue of male and female in the Lord, the only arbiter of the truth which should govern our actions is God’s Word. It does not matter what the world around us thinks or does—indeed, there are many warnings that in the last days there would be a serious departure from God’s Word, and that men and women would value their own views more highly than those set out in Scripture. But no opinions are worth more than the straightforward teaching of Scripture. So what does the Word of God say?

Comment (2) The article starts with Genesis, and immediately imposes an interpretation on the text.

“THE PRINCIPLES underlying the male/female relationship are first set out in the Book of Genesis. Adam was created and given responsibility for the wonderful world which God had made. But that creation was incomplete without the companionship and love of Eve. Adam and Eve had different roles from the start: Adam’s primary responsibility was to till the ground, and to dress and keep the garden that God provided. Eve would help in this; but she would also be the one who would bear children to populate the earth.”

Comment (2a) What does Genesis 1 say?

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”                                                                                (Genesis 1:26-28, RSV)

According to Genesis 1 the man and woman were both “given responsibility for the wonderful world which God had made”. “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion”.

Comment (2b) What does Genesis 2 say?

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”                                         (Genesis 2:15-18)

Where does it say: “Adam and Eve had different roles from the start: Adam’s primary responsibility was to till the ground, and to dress and keep the garden that God provided”?

The text then says: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

The woman was created to be a suitable “helper”. Does the text say that she had a different role? Does it mention role at all? The word “role” does not appear in the Bible.[1] Nothing is said here about Eve’s work, but since it says that it was not good for the man to be alone and that he needed a suitable helper, if we are to make deductions, would it not be correct to deduce that she likewise was to “dress and keep the garden”?

Comment (3) “It was Adam that God called to account”

Both Adam and Eve disregarded what God had said, Eve in taking the fruit from the tree and Adam in taking the fruit from Eve. Both were guilty, but it was Adam whom God called to account. His responsibility was for his wife’s spiritual welfare, but in this he failed. Eve’s responsibility should have been to listen to her husband. Both failed to submit to the clear commandment of God. Both lost their exalted status of access to the Lord. Both shared the status of sinners, excluded from the presence of God and subject to mortality.

Comment (3a) Again, note the added interpretations: “His responsibility was for his wife’s spiritual welfare, but in this he failed. Eve’s responsibility should have been to listen to her husband.”

Where does it say this in the text?

They both had the responsibility to do what God had commanded. The woman said:

“We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden’…”                                                                                                                         (Genesis 3:2-3)

Comment (3b) The KJV uses the plural: ‘Ye shall not eat of it’, showing that this was a command given to them both. Eve’s responsibility was to listen to God, as was Adam’s. The text does not say “Eve’s responsibility should have been to listen to her husband.”

Comment (3c) God called each to account: the man (Genesis 3:9), then the woman (3:10). So, is it correct to say that “Both were guilty, but it was Adam whom God called to account.”?

The intention of these inserted interpretations is to argue, as is said in the article’s next paragraph, that leadership should be by men, not women.

We analyse, in detail, the manner in which this interpretation is imposed on Genesis 1-3 in our book All One in Christ Jesus – Bible Teaching on the Work of Men and Women in Christ’s Service, Chapters 20 and 21.[2]

Comment (4)

Regrettably, I am forced to conclude that the first two paragraphs of this article are not “the straightforward teaching of Scripture”.

Comment (5) “Male leadership”

Male leadership

Nonetheless, even in Genesis, God’s plan of salvation began through men and women of faith: Noah and his family, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and his wives. But throughout the book, the responsibility for the faithful observance of God’s ways clearly belonged to the male line, with Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob acting as the spiritual leaders of their families. After the Exodus, a formal priesthood was established, through the appointment of the Levites as a tribe specially dedicated to God, replacing the eldest sons who had previously borne this responsibility. The principle of a male priesthood was very clearly laid down; and in formal worship, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, only males took part in leading the worship.

This is not to diminish the importance of mothers and daughters in the Old Testament, nor to deny the value of the many women of faith whose deeds are recorded in Hebrews 11 and in the Old Testament. A few are recorded as leaders and prophets; many of the most faithful kings owed much to their mothers; yet those mothers, leaders, and even prophets, are not shown as taking any leadership role in formal worship. There were no women priests of the Lord in the Old Testament. This divine order for worship was firmly established in the Old Testament; and it is repeatedly endorsed in the New Testament, even though in every age God’s offer of salvation has been the same to both male and female.

Comment (5) continued

Four issues are interwoven here:

(a) “the responsibility for the faithful observance of God’s ways clearly belonged to the male line”

and

(b) “The principle of a male priesthood was very clearly laid down; and in formal worship, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, only males took part in leading the worship.”

and

(c) “A few are recorded as leaders and prophets; … yet those mothers, leaders, and even prophets, are not shown as taking any leadership role in formal worship. There were no women priests of the Lord in the Old Testament.”

and

(d) “This divine order for worship was firmly established in the Old Testament; and it is repeatedly endorsed in the New Testament.”

Comments

Comment (5a) “the responsibility for the faithful observance of God’s ways clearly belonged to the male line”

This is only partly true. Did not the women have responsibilities too, e.g. Rebekah (Genesis 27:8), Leah and Rachel, Genesis (30:17-24)?

Comment (5b) “The principle of a male priesthood was very clearly laid down; and in formal worship, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, only males took part in leading the worship.”

It is true that the priests were male. We are not told the reason why, and the Bible does not state that there is a “principle of a male priesthood”.

We give some suggestions about the male priesthood in All One Chapter 25 “Why was the Priesthood exclusively male?” Note also that only some males “took part in leading the worship” i.e. those specifically appointed as priests, which raise the question why it is that in our Christadelphian ecclesias any male may do so.

 Comment (5c) “A few are recorded as leaders and prophets; … yet those mothers, leaders, and even prophets, are not shown as taking any leadership role in formal worship. There were no women priests of the Lord in the Old Testament.”

This is true, though “the women who served at the entrance of the tent of meeting” appear to have been there in some sort of official capacity (1 Samuel 2:22). The fact that they were abused by the wicked sons of Eli, may give a clue as to why God did not appoint females as priests.

Comment (5d) This divine order for worship was firmly established in the Old Testament; and it is repeatedly endorsed in the New Testament.”

Where is male leadership “repeatedly endorsed in the New Testament”?

Male leadership exists (Jesus, the apostles, Paul), but there is also evidence of female leadership in the descriptions of worship in the early ecclesias. Both are endorsed.

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that leadership should be male.

There is a difference between observing that leadership was frequently by males (not surprising in a very male-dominated society), and declaring that male leadership as such (but not female leadership) is endorsed.

See All One, Chapter 6, “Brother and Sisters in the New Testament”.

Comment (6) “New Testament Principles”

New Testament principles

During his ministry, Jesus depended on the willing service of many women among his disciples; but the apostles were exclusively male, and there is a continuity in God’s instructions for worship running through from the Old Testament into the New.

Everyone, whether male or female, has the same access to salvation in Christ Jesus—the same opportunity to become sons and daughters of God, and on the same terms. It is in this respect that there is “neither Jew nor Greek . . . slave nor free . . . male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). This is a description of our equal status before God: it is not speaking about males and females having the same roles. So Paul says: “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3, AV). There is no suggestion here that this statement was specific to Corinth, or to the first century alone: it was a general principle.

The Apostle Peter makes a related statement: “Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1). Peter says this, not because husbands are superior in status, but because this is part of the established divine order. The principle is submission to, and acceptance of, God’s commands. The thinking of the modern world is of no consequence, especially as the beliefs of the world around us go further and further from the ways of God as revealed in Scripture. Peter goes on to exhort sisters to dress discreetly, to adorn themselves with “a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (v. 4); and he quotes the example of Sarah, who willingly submitted herself to Abraham in recognising him as the head of the family: “So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands” (v. 5).

Comment (6a) “there is a continuity in God’s instructions for worship running through from the Old Testament into the New.”

If by “continuity” the writer means male priests, how true is that?

Where are the priests now? According to 1 Peter 2, we are all priests:

… and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 

… you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.  Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy.                                                (1 Peter 2:2-10).

Who are the priests who go into the temple?

Jesus, our high priest, and all of us who have been baptised.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.                   (Hebrews 10:19-22)

NRSV says:

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.                                                                (Hebrews 10:19-22)

Who offer sacrifices?

We all do, male and female:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship.                                    (Romans 12:1, NIV)

Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise – the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.                                                                          (Hebrews 13:15-16, NIV)

So, yes, there is a continuity, but also a very considerable difference. It is “the new and living way” (Hebrews 10:20). This is “true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1).

The priests are no longer just Jews, but are gentiles too.

They are no longer just men, but include all members of the church, including women.

The sacrifices we offer are: ourselves, our time, our money, our God-given talents.

Comment (6b) “This is a description of our equal status before God: it is not speaking about males and females having the same roles.”

As said above, the Bible never talks of roles. It describes service, and it does not define these in the New Testament passages on male or female lines.

Comment (6c) “Paul says: “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3, AV). There is no suggestion here that this statement was specific to Corinth, or to the first century alone: it was a general principle.”

The general principle, universally applicable, is of submission to one another. But note that in 1 Corinthians 11, the service offered is identical whether male or female: “any man who prays or prophesies …, any woman who prays or prophesies…”.

In other words, if people wish to use the word “role”, male and female both have the same role as far as activity in the meeting: prophesying and praying.

And, I suggest, though there is difference amongst expositors on this, there is good reason to think that in 1 Corinthians 11 this is talking about husbands and wives in how they dress and behave towards each other in public.[3] The other passages (Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 are demonstrably about husbands and wives) but as regards male and female participation in ecclesial activity, the activity in 1 Corinthians 11 is identical.

Comment (7) “Lost in Translation”

Lost in translation?

The Greek words adelphos and adelphē are respectively translated “brother” (346 times) and “sister” (twenty-four times) in the AV, and this was how the words were consistently translated until the twenty-first century, even in versions like the NIV. Compare, for example, these two translations of 1 Corinthians 15:1 from different editions of the NIV:

“Now brothers [adelphoi] [The footnote says: This is the plural form of adelphos and means brothers.] I want to remind you” (NIV, 1984 edition)
“Now brothers and sisters I want to remind you” (NIV, 2011 edition).

So why the change? The original Greek word has not changed—it was understood to mean (male) ‘brothers’ by just about every translation, including the New Living Translation in the late 1970s, by J. B. Phillips, and by most others into the start of this century. Even today some of the more honest gender-inclusive translations translate it as “brothers”, with “brothers and sisters” in a footnote; or with “brothers and sisters” in the text, while admitting in a footnote that the Greek simply means “brothers”.

What happened, then? The advent of assertive feminism, and the desire to justify female priests, in the interests of conforming to twenty-first-century ideas, have overwhelmed the translators’ loyalty to accurate translation. As a direct consequence of this, the current editions of the NIV give misleading impressions regarding the roles of male and female in the church, for example, in 1 Corinthians 14:26,27: “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (NIV, 2011). This translation implies that both brothers and sisters were in the habit of addressing the congregation. The RSV, however, faithful to the Greek text, translates the passage: “What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification”. This makes it clear that these are male responsibilities. And, lest there should be any doubt, a few verses later this is said: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (v. 34, NIV).

Comment (7a) “it was understood to mean (male) ‘brothers’ by just about every translation, including the New Living Translation in the late 1970s, by J. B. Phillips, and by most others into the start of this century.”

The fact that translations used the word “brothers” or “brethren” does not justify the comment “it was understood to mean (male) ‘brothers’”. It was a fact of life that masculine terminology was used to include women.

For example:

[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.                                                                                 (1 Timothy 2:3-4, RSV)

Here the word men (anthrōpoi in Greek) refers to men and women, as modern translations say, using terms like “everyone” or “all people” e.g.

[God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (NRSV).

[God] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV)

Likewise the word brethren was used in the past, but this does not mean that “it was understood to mean (male) ‘brothers’”.

I looked at An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, by Charles Hodge, D.D., 1863. He uses the word “brethren”, but it is evident that by “brethren” he means believers, male and female.

He writes: “This epistle was addressed not only to the Christians in Corinth but also to all their brethren in the province of which Corinth was the capital.” (Page 5, commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:2).  He obviously uses “brethren” as equivalent to “Christians”. Are “Christians” male only?

Comment (7b) “Even today some of the more honest gender-inclusive translations translate it as “brothers”, with “brothers and sisters” in a footnote; or with “brothers and sisters” in the text, while admitting in a footnote that the Greek simply means “brothers”.”

Is it reasonable to use the term “honest”, implying that others are dishonest?

The footnotes explain why they have translated adelphoi as “brothers and sisters”. They are not “admitting” that it simply means “brothers”. They say:

“The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women as part of God’s family; also in 7:1,4: 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:14,17.”      (NIV, 2011 version, footnote to Romans 1:13)

If the translators consider that adelphoi refers to both men and women, then they are correct to translate the single word by “brothers and sisters”. They are not “admitting in a footnote that the Greek simply means “brothers””. The Greek does not simply means “brothers”.

Comment (7c) “What happened, then? The advent of assertive feminism, and the desire to justify female priests, in the interests of conforming to twenty-first-century ideas, have overwhelmed the translators’ loyalty to accurate translation.”

The translators specifically deny this. See the prefaces from NIV and NRSV at the end of these comments. See the following quotation about translations:

“This translation [of adelphoi as “brothers and sisters”] is not a ‘paraphrase’ or a concession to a political correctness. It is exactly what the Greek term meant in its first century context.” (Gordon Fee and Marks Strauss, How to choose a Translation for All Its Worth, page 99)

Comment (7d) “As a direct consequence of this, the current editions of the NIV give misleading impressions regarding the roles of male and female in the church, for example, in 1 Corinthians 14:26,27: “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (NIV, 2011). This translation implies that both brothers and sisters were in the habit of addressing the congregation.”

Yes, this is what the translation implies by saying “brothers and sisters”. Why then does the writer reject it? Because it does not fit his theory that only males may lead in worship.

Is this not putting the cart before the horse? Why not go by what Scripture actually says, and then adapt our theories to that? In 1 Corinthians 11, both brothers and sisters speak in prayer and prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 14:26 Paul describes what happens at their meetings, and asks for it to be done in a more orderly fashion, not speaking all at once. Paul started the ecclesia at Corinth, taught there for 18 months, so this method of many participants – male and female – can reasonably be assumed to be how he arranged for the meetings to be organised.

If Paul intended sisters not to take part, why does he say in verse 31: “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged” (NRSV)?

The traditional answer is that Paul waited until verse 34 to make himself clear, in case from his inclusive language “you … all” he was assumed to be including sisters.

Comment (7e) “The RSV, however, faithful to the Greek text, translates the passage: “What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification”. This makes it clear that these are male responsibilities.”

As said, “brethren”, if understood to mean only men, is not a correct translation.

Comment (7f) “And, lest there should be any doubt, a few verses later this is said: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (v. 34, NIV).”

In All One, Chapter 8, we give five or more different possible explanations of this, taking account of the context.

It is not possible to assert which explanation is the most likely, other than that, in context, it cannot be the blanket ban on women which traditional expositors used to assert, and which the writer of this Testimony article continues to assert.

I will say more further down in response to the other points made in this article, but let me at this point add an extract about adelphoi “Brothers and sisters” from the excellent article in the July 2020 Christadelphian: “Gender and Biblical Translation”:

… in the first century ecclesia, brother generally refers to someone who has been reborn by baptism into God’s family, regardless of his or her gender:

“He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” (Hebrews 2:11,12)

Clearly both men and women are included here.* The dozens of uses of brothers in the Acts and the epistles overwhelmingly refer to both men and women.

[* Footnote: “It is worth noting that, although I have concentrated on New Testament Greek usage, the Hebrew usage is similar, as the quotation in this passage from Psalm 22 demonstrates.]

                                                            (The Christadelphian, July 2020, page 317)

Comment (8)

Here is the explanation given by the NIV and the NRSV translators.

NIV Preface

“One of the shifts that creates particular challenges to writers and translators alike is the manner in which gender is presented. The original NIV (1978) was published in a time when ‘a man’ would naturally be understood, in many contexts, to be referring to a person, whether male or female. But most English speakers today tend to hear a distinctly male connotation in this word. In recognition of this change in English, this edition of the NIV, along with almost all other recent English translations, substitutes other expressions when the original text intends to refer generically to men and women equally. Thus, for instance, the NIV (1984) rendering of 1 Corinthians 8:3, ‘But the man who loves God is known by God’ becomes in this edition ‘But whoever loves God is known by God.’ On the other hand, ‘man’ and ‘mankind’, as ways of denoting the human race, are still widely used. This edition of the NIV therefore continues to use these words, along with other expressions, in this way.”

“A related shift in English creates a greater challenge for modern translations: the move away from using the third-person masculine singular pronouns – ‘he/him/his’ – to refer to men and women equally. This usage does persist at a low level in some forms of English, and this revision, therefore, occasionally uses these pronouns in a generic sense. But the tendency, recognized in day-to-day usage and confirmed by extensive research, is away from the generic use of ‘he,’ ‘him’, and ‘his.’ In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the ‘common’ English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a ‘they’, ‘them’ or ‘their’ to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: ‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?’ This generic use of the indefinite or ‘singular’ ‘they/them/their’ has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, ‘anyone’ or ‘everyone’ or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns.” (NIV 2010 Preface, page xvi)

NRSV Preface

“During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English. Only very occasionally has the pronoun ‘he’ or ‘him’ been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original. In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.”              (NRSV 2008 preface, page xviii)

Comment (9) “A further error”

A further error

It is also incorrect to suggest that adelphoi was used in Greek routinely to describe brothers and sisters, either in the New Testament or in Greek secular writings. Here are a couple of Biblical examples:

“And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters [adelphos kai adelphē] or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” (Mt. 19:29);

“Then came to him [Job] all his brothers and sisters [Septuagint Greek, hai adelphoi autou kai hai adelphai autou] and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house” (Job 42:11).

There are also several other instances where the distinction is clear. In secular Greek there are occasional usages of adelphos to describe a brother and a sister where they are blood relatives; but this does not occur in normal usage, where adelphos and adelphē are used to distinguish between brothers and sisters.

Comment (9a) These two examples indicate that if, in narrative, you wish to make clear that you are referring to both brothers and to sisters, you need to specify, because adelphoi on its own might mean “brothers” or it might mean “brothers and sisters”.

However, these examples are irrelevant to the analysis of what Paul means when he says adelphoi, using the term to address the people to whom he is writing, i.e. when he uses adelphoi as a vocative.[4]

The footnote says:

“It seems clear from the usage of adelphoi in the New Testament and ancient literature that the word was normally understood as brothers”. (Information taken from www.bible-researcher.com/adelphos.html, where more detail can be found.) There is also an exhaustive examination of the suggestion that adelphos should normally be taken to refer to both brothers and sisters at http://cbmresources.org/index.php/index.html/_/stud ies/rightly-dividing-the-word-a-review-of-argumen-r25

Comment (9b)

Again, this is beside the point. No one needs to know Greek to be able to determine what Paul means when he writes adelphoi as a way of addressing the people to whom he writes.

Paul uses a number of ways of addressing people in his letters.

For example, here is the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Romans using the RSV. I have marked in bold the words which indicate to whom he says he is writing:

To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.        (Romans 1:7-13, RSV)

When Paul writes “to all God’s beloved”, “to you”, “to all of you” and then addresses them as “brethren” [adelphoi], to whom is he speaking? To a group of male believers in Rome, or is he thinking of and addressing the sisters too?

If Paul is addressing both male and female believers by using adelphoi, and I think this is the inevitable conclusion from this paragraph at the beginning of Romans, it is incorrect today to translate it as “brethren” because the word is archaic English, and implies that no women are included.

It is also incorrect to translate it by “brothers”, because if Paul means “brothers and sisters” we should translate it that way to be accurate to the Greek and to Scripture.

The same can be illustrated repeatedly. Try using a concordance like Young’s and look up the way Paul uses “brethren” to address people.

In the past, people used masculine terminology and used it to include both men and women. The realisation, however, that to address our meetings saying “brother” or “brethren” appears to omit the sisters has led to the usual address being “Dear Brothers and Sisters” or the more archaic “Dear Brethren and Sisters”. 

We give further examples and explanations in All One, Chapter 6.

Here is the same passage of Romans in the NIV, again with indications of those to whom he is writing marked in bold.

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong – that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,[^d] that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

I have already cited the NIV footnote [^d] to verse 13 which says:
 “The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:14, 17.”

Comment (9c) Looking at this NIV footnote, only in two verses is adelphoi not a vocative, Romans 8:29 and 16:14. Should we consider Romans 8:29 refers to men only?

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (RSV)

or does it refer to all believers as shown by NIV?:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.                                                                   (Romans 8:29. NIV)

Comment (10) “addressing letters to brethren specifically”

Why this matters

The inspired exhortations and practical and doctrinal teaching of the New Testament letters were intended for all the members of the first-century ecclesias. In addressing letters to brethren specifically, Paul, Peter and the other writers clearly expected their messages to be shared with the whole ecclesia—indeed, it was the responsibility of the brethren to ensure that this was done. When Paul told the Colossians, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea” (4:16), he was clearly asking the “faithful brethren” of 1:2 to carry out this task.

Comment (10a) The argument presented here is that although the message was intended for all, it was addressed only to the male brothers, who then had the job of passing on the information to the whole ecclesia.

Colossians 1:2 is addressed to “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colossae” (RSV). Paul continues: “Grace to you … when we pray for you .. we have heard of your faith.”

I can see no reason to think that these should be separated out, that saints, for example refers to the members of the ecclesia, male and female, but “faithful brethren” refer only to males. Or is the argument that “saints” refers only to male members of the ecclesia too, since the word for “saints” hagioi is also masculine plural like adelphoi?

Comment (10b) “he was clearly asking the “faithful brethren” of 1:2 to carry out this task.” Note the word “clearly”, frequently added when writers wish to assert something which is actually open to doubt!

Paul simply says:

Give my greetings to the brethren at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.                                               (Colossians 4:15-16, RSV)

One can presume that those who received this letter would see that the letter and greetings were passed on. Doubtless they would be “faithful”. And probably brothers. But the implication of saying “asking the “faithful brethren”” is that there was a particular group of brothers, like “Arranging Brothers” who would organise this.

That may have been so, but I cannot see that the term “faithful brethren” should be limited in this way in Colossians or elsewhere.

Likewise, when Paul says “Give my greetings to the brethren at Laodicea” (RSV), does he mean only to a group of ABs there? Or does he mean to the members of the church there as in NIV: “Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.”?

Why should Paul send his greetings only to the male members at Laodicea? Or only to the ABs (to use Christadelphian terminology) at Laodicea?

Comment (10c) It is interesting to compare this with Philippians.

There Paul does make a differentiation:

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops [or overseers, footnote] and deacons:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  I thank my God in all my remembrance of you…

                                                                        (Philippians 1:1-2, RSV)

However, Paul regularly says “you”, which seems to me to be addressing them all, including when he uses terms like “my beloved” agapētoi (Philippians 2:12), and “brethren” (1:12, 3:1, 4:1, 4:8). Is he referring only to the male brothers, or only to a small group of overseers and deacons? This seems to me unlikely and contrary to the way Paul’s letters are understood by us now and have always been understood in the past.

If Paul had meant his letter to be to the overseers and deacons, for them to read out and pass on, why does he not say so, rather than appearing to be addressing the whole ecclesia by saying “to all the saints”?

Comment (11) “roles reserved to brothers”

There is no justification to assert that every time adelphos and adelphoi are used they are to be taken to mean ‘brother(s) and sister(s).’ Misleading translations based on this false premise should not be used to ‘prove’ that passages setting out roles reserved to brothers may also be interpreted as exhorting sisters to undertake these roles. This is contrary to the text of Scripture.

Comment (11a) No one asserts that every time adelphoi is used it should be translated as “brothers and sisters”. When Paul and Barnabas go in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15) the text says:

 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” (RSV)

The NIV correctly says:

 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

“Brethren” and “brothers” here is adelphoi. Since there are only two of them, Paul and Barnabas, obviously to translate this as “brothers and sisters” would be incorrect, and NIV correctly says “brothers”.

But when Paul uses adelphoi, agapētoi (beloved), hagioi (saints, holy ones) in addressing those to whom he writes, it seems correct to consider that this is his way of addressing all the believers, male and female, and it is in this context it is correct to translate so as to include both male and female believers.

Comment (11b) It is an assumption to talk of “passages setting out roles reserved to brothers”.

There are no passages which set out roles which the New Testament defines as exclusively for brothers.

Comment (11c) Passages which might be mentioned are obviously 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which appear to restrict sisters to silence and by deduction therefore say that brothers should speak and teach. But these need to be understood and explained in context, as we do in All One. Other passages restrict men to silence (1 Corinthians 14:28; Titus 1:11) and instruct women to be teachers of good things (Titus 2:3).

Comment (11d) Instructions to elders/overseers/deacons could be cited, assuming that these provide “roles reserved to brothers”, except that Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon, and while 1 Timothy 3:11 might refer to the wives of deacons, it can reasonably be argued that it refers to women deacons.

The issues are not as clearly expressed as any of us would like, but much of what is presented in this article is an assertion to defend the idea of male leadership. It relies on inserting ideas into Scripture and contradicting the assessment made by many translators.

Comment (12) “Female roles in the early church”

Female roles in the early church

In the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters, leadership in public preaching, worship and the organisation of the ecclesias was undertaken by the brethren. This is not to discount the very valuable work done by sisters; but there is no evidence that it included these particular roles. Sisters were highly valued as fellow-workers; and there is one case of a sister (Phoebe, in Romans 16:1) being described, in some translations, as a “deacon”. There are also references to sisters’ houses being used as meeting places; but none of this suggests that they undertook the male leadership roles mentioned above. Synagogue worship was led by males at that time and followed the patterns of worship set out in the Old Testament. The evidence is that the early church followed the same patterns of worship, led by males. Synagogue worship was led by males at that time and followed the patterns of worship set out in the Old Testament.

Comment (12a) Most of this is speculation, based on the theory that leadership must be male and therefore was male.

In a largely male dominated society as the ancient world was, it is not surprising that males predominated in public activities. That does not justify the blanket assertion that “leadership in public preaching, worship and the organisation of the ecclesias was undertaken by the brethren.” – with the assumption that no leadership was undertaken or could be undertaken by women.

Comment (12b) Pentecost suggests a change: “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). 1 Corinthians 11 shows this in practice: both praying and prophesying, “any man who prays or prophesies, ... any woman who prays or prophesies” (RSV).

Since prophesying is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:29, stating that “you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged” why should this not be understood to include sisters as well as brothers, quite apart from whether “brethren” in verse 26 refers to “brothers” only or to “brothers and sisters”?

Comment (12c) This does not suggest that the early church followed the same patterns of worship as the synagogue, though it might have done in some respects. Having meals together to break bread and drink wine in memory of Jesus was obviously not synagogue practice either, and nothing in the New Testament shows how this was organised, other than Paul encouraging it to be done in the right spirit and with care for others.

Comment (12d) Synagogues are not mentioned in Old Testament times. The “patterns of worship” set out in the Old Testament are in the Temple by male priests. As shown above (Comment 6a), this is all transformed in the New Testament. There is little in the New Testament to suggest that the synagogue pattern was copied by the early ecclesias.

Comment (12e)

When we have mention in the New Testament of fellow workers, male and female, it would be helpful if we had more information. But what we do know is that similar language is used to describe both male and female workers, and Paul shows no sign of cautioning his readers by saying “Of course, though they worked alongside the brothers, they didn’t do any public or leadership work in the churches.”!

Of Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3) Paul says: “they have laboured side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers”.

The phrase “laboured side by side” translates the single verb synathleo. It is worth noting that Paul did not say that they worked under him, as might have been said by a leader in today’s world. Syn means “together”, while athleo (which gives us the word “athlete”) means to strive hard, to struggle to win against strong opposition, just as athletes do to achieve victory in the Olympic Games. The same verb was used in chapter 1 verse 27, where it is translated as “striving side by side” for the faith of the gospel.

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents.    (Philippians 1:27-28, italics ours)

Paul’s description suggests energetic activity to promote the faith and defend it against opponents.

Several words meaning “work” are used particularly for the work of the gospel. The words are the verb kopiao and the nouns kopos and ergon. Kopos in particular means “hard work” or “toil” and is a favourite word of Paul’s to describe missionary activity and the upbuilding of ecclesias. “Fellow workers” is synergoi, literally “workers together”. These words are used of those who worked together with Paul as leaders in the service of preaching, teaching and providing examples in behaviour. Leadership, patterned on Jesus, is not ordering people about but is service to others. As Jesus says in Luke 22:25-26, “... let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves”.

Writing about his own work and that of Apollos, Paul says:

He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labour [kopos]. For we are fellow workers [synergoi] for God; you are God’s field, God’s building.            (1 Corinthians 3:8-9)

To the Thessalonians Paul writes:

We beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labour [kopiao] among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work [ergon].                                                 (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)

In 2 Corinthians 8:23 Paul describes Titus as “my partner and fellow worker [synergos].” In Philippians 2:25-30 Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “my brother and fellow worker [synergos] and fellow soldier” and says “he nearly died for the work [ergon] of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me.” In Romans 16 Paul describes Prisca [Priscilla] and Aquila and Timothy as “fellow workers” [synergoi] (Romans 16:3, 21). Urbanus is “our fellow worker in Christ” [synergos]. Of Mary it is said: “she has worked hard [kopiao] among you”, and Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis are called “workers in the Lord [kopiao]”. In Colossians 4:11 Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus are the only Jewish fellow workers present at that point with Paul. In Philemon 24, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are mentioned as fellow workers, while Philemon is also addressed by the same term. The work Philemon does is described in verses 2, 6 and 7: he has a church in his house, he is sharing his faith, and the “hearts of the saints have been refreshed” through him.

It is significant that both brothers and sisters are described as “workers in the Lord” and “fellow workers”, and there is no difference expressed in the work they do.

Please see the rest of what we say in All One, Chapter 5 “What happened in the Early Ecclesias”.

Comment (13)

Passages that confirm all this include the following:

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men [anthrōpos = humankind] . . . I desire then that in every place the men [anēr—always specifically used of males] should pray . . . Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” (1 Tim. 2:1,8,11,12).

This teaching is very straightforward and does not assign any formal role in the leadership of worship to sisters, then or now. It is worth noting that the Greek word used in relation to keeping silent is hesuchia, which is also used to describe the “great hush” which came over the crowd when Paul asked to speak to the Jews after his arrest in the temple (Acts 21:40).

Comment (13a) “This teaching is very straightforward”

We examine the context of these words in detail in All One, Chapters 9 & 10. Sorry to keep mentioning our book, but there is no point in repeating it all here. However, the teaching is not “very straightforward”. Here are three reasons why:

Comment (13b) Paul specifically says he is answering an emergency situation. (1 Timothy 3:14)

Comment (13c) Translation: “in silence” is en hēsychia, which despite the usage in Acts 21:40, is not the same word as in 1 Corinthians 14 (which is sigao). It means that when a sister is being taught she should be quiet (not silent), but this statement suggests there is a problem with a disruptive woman or disruptive women, which fits the context as stated in 1 Timothy 1:6-7. We are all told to lead a quiet and peaceable life (hēsychion bion), not a silent one (1 Timothy 2:2). The word hēsychion is the adjective form of hēsychia: quiet, not silent.

Comment (13d)

Translations vary in their emphasis. Is Paul instructing that men and not women should pray? That is an easy deduction. The words literally say: “I want the men to pray in every place.” If you take those words on their own, you could conclude that he means “not the women” although Paul does not actually say that. But I have only quoted the first part of the sentence: The full sentence, as literally as it can be translated, is: “I want the men to pray in every place without anger and disputing.” Again, this suggests a definite context as in 1 Timothy 6:4-5 “controversy”, “disputes”, “dissension”, “wrangling among men”.

Comment (13e) Prayer “likewise the women”

After giving instructions about prayer to the men in 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul continues the sentence with “likewise the women”. To what does “likewise” refer. There are two answers: either to “I want” or to “to pray”. Both can be argued for, and usually translators decide to go for “I want”. But, as we cite in All One pages (99-102), this passage can be translated:

Therefore, it is my wish that when the men pray, no matter where, they should lift up hands that are holy – they should not become angry or get into arguments. Likewise, the women, when they pray, should be dressed modestly and sensibly ....        (Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern)

We give several other translations which also says this: for example, the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, first published in 1864:

I appoint, therefore, the MEN to pray in every place, lifting up Holy Hands without Wrath and Disputing.

In like manner, the WOMEN, also, in becoming Attire, with Modesty and soberness of mind, not decorating themselves with Wreaths, or Gold, or Pearls, or expensive clothing.                         (Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson)

I purchased in Athens the Greek Bible Society’s (1989) translation of the New Testament. It is endorsed by the Greek Orthodox Church, who, as far as I know, do not have women priests. Translated back into English, here is what the passage says:

I desire, then, that the men should pray in every place of prayer, without anger and dispute, and I desire that the hands which they raise to heaven should be pure. Likewise also that the women should pray in modest dress.                                                                                                 (1 Timothy 2:8-9)

I am not saying that these translations are necessarily correct. Both versions are possible.

However, these considerations – Scriptural context and the various meanings of the Greek – throw doubt on the writer’s statement: “This teaching is very straightforward and does not assign any formal role in the leadership of worship to sisters, then or now.”

Comment (14) “the women should keep silence”

“. . . the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law [accepted by almost all commentators as referring to the Old Testament] says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands [anēr—men] at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:34,35).

Again, this is very straightforward. There is nothing in the text to suggest any other meaning—the Greek word laleō means ‘to talk’ or ‘to utter words,’ and the same word is used to describe Zechariah’s inability to speak after his encounter with the angel in the temple (Lk. 1:22). There is no reason to believe that Paul’s comment refers to a specific problem of Corinthian sisters heckling speakers or chattering in the meeting.

Comment (14a) “the women should keep silence” This time the verb is sigaō, and does mean silent in the sense of not speaking.

Comment (14b) Paul appears to have no objection to women speaking in prayer and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11, so if he now says they should not speak at all, that seems a contradiction. The usual argument is to say that in 1 Corinthians 11 the issue was women’s head covering when speaking and praying, so he postponed his actual view until the end of three chapters later. That does not seem a reasonable argument.

Comment (14c) We give all the explanations we are aware of in All One, Chapter 8, “1 Corinthians 14:34-36 in Context”. One of the suggestions is that Paul is quoting critics in Corinth who wish to silence the women, and he strongly disagrees with them. This happens frequently in his correspondence with the Corinthians.  Examples on non-controversial issues (to us) can be quoted from chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15 of 1 Corinthians.[5] It is not unreasonable to suggest that this happens here too, and resolves the apparent contradiction with 1 Corinthians 11.
Comment (14d) “the law [accepted by almost all commentators as referring to the Old Testament]” Usually reference is made to Genesis 3:16 “he [your husband] will rule over you”. This verse is never cited anywhere in the Bible with approval. Paul asks wives to be submissive to their husbands (and vice-versa – “be submissive to one another”, Ephesians 5:21). Neither Jesus not Paul, nor any other New Testament writer endorses husbands ruling over wives.  So the reference it is not likely to be to Genesis 3:16.

Comment (14e) Some years after we had written All One, I was asked to comment on the manner in which Paul makes reference to the law. One of my New Testament Greek texts prints in bold type all the quotations from the Old Testament. I went through each and examined them carefully.

Here is what I found:

(a) Paul introduces a specific quote from the Old Testament by “it is written” about 30 times.
(b) Paul introduces a specific quote from the Old Testament by “it says” or “the law says” about 25 times.
(c) Paul quotes a specific quote from the Old Testament with no introduction (presumably expecting his hearers to recognise the quotations) about 36 times.

Conclusion: It seems to me that Paul nearly always, when he refers to the law or the Old Testament, cites exactly the passage he is talking about.

It strikes me, therefore, as significant, and oddly significant, that 1 Corinthians 14:34 does not cite any passage. Since Paul regularly refers to the Old Testament to provide principles to support what he says, if this passage is a weighty passage from Paul intended to stop sisters from speaking at all in our ecclesias, it is very strange that Paul does not cite the passage he has in mind.

This gives added reason to think that either this passage comes originally from elsewhere, and it appears here either as a quotation (which Paul rebuts in verse 36), or a later interpolation intended to overthrow what Paul has said earlier where he encourages both brothers and sisters to speak in the ecclesia. The fact that verses 34 and 35 appear in some manuscripts after verse 40 again suggest that this is not “very straightforward”.

Comment (14f)

There is no reason to believe that Paul’s comment refers to a specific problem of Corinthian sisters heckling speakers or chattering in the meeting.

I suggest there is good reason to think that some specific problem lies behind the text. Otherwise, why say:

 “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

This implies that their speech involves asking questions. And if it is speaking as such which is shameful, why does Paul not say so in 1 Corinthians 11, where the issue of what is shameful is not speaking and praying, which is acceptable, but doing so when not wearing the clothing which respectable married women normally wore?

So, once more, the claim that “Again, this is very straightforward” does not stand up to careful scrutiny when we look at what the Bible text actually says.

The Message Bible shows how one of the several possible interpretations of these words can be understood in context:

“Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home.”

Comment (15)

Ecclesial leadership in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus

Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus contain the most detail in the New Testament about arrangements for the organisation of the ecclesias. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Paul sets out clearly who should be responsible for the leadership of ecclesial life. The detail is found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In each case it is quite clear that those described in 1 Timothy 3 as bishops are male, married and of good report (vv. 1-7). Those described as deacons are also spoken of as husbands (v. 12) and are therefore also male.

Comment (15a) “Paul sets out clearly who should be responsible for the leadership of ecclesial life.”

It is remarkable how often the word “clearly” or “clear” is used to assert an argument when the matter is not clear!

Comment (15b) “In each case it is quite clear that those described in 1 Timothy 3 as bishops are male, married and of good report (vv. 1-7).”

In the case of bishops (or “overseers”, depending on translation), the mention of “husband of one wife”… “manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” (1 Timothy 3:2-4) indicates that male bishops are understood. But note that being male is not specified a such. It is behaviour and quality of character that is specified. In other words, those in charge of the ecclesia are to be of good moral character.

If we are to deduce that maleness is a criterion (though it is only specified by implication), why do we not insist on the other criteria also, i.e. no one can be an AB unless married, and with children, and wealthy enough to have a household (which in Roman times included slaves)?

Comment (15c) “Those described as deacons are also spoken of as husbands (v. 12) and are therefore also male.”

The same goes for deacons: “Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well” (1 Timothy 3:12).

But on deacons, the issue is not so straightforward because:

(1) Phoebe is commended by Paul and he describes her as a deacon (Romans 16:1), so Paul appears not to have any reservations about a woman deacon.

(2) In 1 Timothy 3:11 it says: “The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things” but observe various footnotes which say: “Possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons” (NIV); “Or Their wives, or Women deacons” (NRSV); while the Revised English Bible (updated version of the New English Bible) puts in the main text: “Women in this office” and in the footnote says: “Women in this office … or Their wives”.

(3) Since the mention of women comes in the section on deacons, but no such equivalent mention is made about wives of bishops (the behaviour of whose wives would be as important if not more important), there is good reason to approve the translation of “women” as “women in this office” or “women deacons”.

Comment (15d) “Paul sets out clearly who should be responsible for the leadership of ecclesial life.”

The comments just given show that the claim that leadership in ecclesial life was exclusively male is scripturally incorrect – since deacons can be male or female.

Comment (16)

This confirms the record in Acts that the church leaders in Jerusalem were men, and that those who led the preaching as it spread outwards from Jerusalem were also men. [Footnote: There can be no doubt, however, that each baptised sister would be expected to preach individually.] Some, like Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary and Julia are especially commended for their work in the Lord. But this does not suggest that they had formal roles in worship and preaching. Those who were appointed as elders, too, were men.

Comment (16a)

It would be useful to have more precise information that we are given. Paul uses the same terminology to describe the work in spreading the Gospel of both men and women. Below is a repeat of my comment (12c) above.

Is there any reason to suppose that when Paul describes both brothers and sisters in Christ as “workers” that we are to think the males “had formal roles in worship and preaching” and the females did not – unless you have a predisposition to say so?

In 2 Corinthians 8:23 Paul describes Titus as “my partner and fellow worker [synergos].” In Philippians 2:25-30 Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “my brother and fellow worker [synergos] and fellow soldier” and says “he nearly died for the work [ergon] of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me.” In Romans 16 Paul describes Prisca [Priscilla] and Aquila and Timothy as “fellow workers” [synergoi] (Romans 16:3, 21). Urbanus is “our fellow worker in Christ” [synergos]. Of Mary it is said: “she has worked hard [kopiao] among you”, and Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis are called “workers in the Lord [kopiao]”. In Colossians 4:11 Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus are the only Jewish fellow workers present at that point with Paul. In Philemon 24, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are mentioned as fellow workers, while Philemon is also addressed by the same term. The work Philemon does is described in verses 2, 6 and 7: he has a church in his house, he is sharing his faith, and the “hearts of the saints have been refreshed” through him.

It is significant that both brothers and sisters are described as “workers in the Lord” and “fellow workers”, and there is no difference expressed in the work they do.

Comment (16b)

What is meant by “formal roles in worship and preaching”? Where does the New Testament specify either “roles” or use the term “formal”?

I suggest this is reading back modern Christadelphian terminology into New Testament times.

Comment (17)

Even those who advocate that sisters should speak, take part in formal worship, and have leadership roles within the ecclesia, accept that there is little evidence that this happened in the first century. The suggestion that there was a ‘golden age’ of male/female equality in formal preaching, teaching and worship in the early church is not borne out by the biblical evidence or by secular histories.

Comment (17a)

Going by the New Testament, the biblical evidence is set out as above, in the activities in 1 Corinthians 11 where both male and female pray and prophesy and in the encouragement given in Romans 12:6-8, addressed to “every one of you”. It is not a matter of gender roles, but of service according to the different gifts given to each of us:

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

                                                (Romans 12:3-8, NRSV, emphasis mine)

Comment (17b)

Given the prominence of men in society rather than women, we would expect that men rather than women would take on prominent activity. But, we should note the counter-cultural prominence that is shown to women in the New Testament. We should not be surprised, considering that our new relationship in Christ is described as a “new creation”:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!                                                                    (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)

In the new creation, we no longer view people by former criteria: Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female. We see them as “clothed” with Christ (Galatians 3:27) and as such respect their contributions in service as described in Romans 12:3-8.

Comment (18) “as times change, so should our interpretation of Scripture”

It is also suggested that this was the result of the culture of the time, and that, as times change, so should our interpretation of Scripture and our teaching on the roles of sisters. But Paul and the other apostles were very clear that the greatest danger to the early Christians was that the gospel which they had received from Jesus Christ would be changed by the infiltration of more ‘modern’ ideas. They described these ideas as disastrous heresies which, if left unchecked, would destroy the church. Rather than advocating fundamental change, the writers of the New Testament constantly warned against it.

Comment (18a)

Slavery was accepted as part of the culture of the time, but the new values promoted by Jesus and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament demonstrate (when thought through to their logical conclusion) that slavery is not in accord with God’s will.

Nor is the subjugation of women so often practised from pre-Christian times, and in much of the post New Testament era. The New Testament moves strongly against putting women down, and the advocacy that both men and women should serve Christ as given in Romans 12, is fully in line with Christian teaching.

Comment (18b)

The doctrine of a principle of male leadership is not Scriptural teaching.

Comment (18c) “They described these ideas as disastrous heresies”

I can’t see any Scriptural term “disastrous heresies” in any translation but if the reference is to 2 Peter 2:1, it says:

… there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words… (2 Peter 2:1-3)

The context shows that these heresies involve:

(1) “denying the Master”

(2) “licentiousness” (i.e. sexual immorality)

(3) “greed”

Comment (18d)

Is it seriously being suggested that the activities of a sister who prays at a meeting, who speaks helpful and encouraging spiritual words, who teaches by spoken word or by written articles in The Christadelphian, who serves on a committee to organise preaching activities, who does all this in the spirit of Romans 12:3-8, is introducing “disastrous heresies”?

Comment (19)

Paul’s final counsel to Timothy

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men [Gk. anthrōpoi] who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1,2).

It has been suggested by some that anthrōpoi should always be interpreted as meaning ‘men and women’ or ‘people.’ But there is no justification for this in New Testament Greek, as the following extract shows:

“. . . when anthrōpos is used in reference to a particular individual, that individual is always male. The word anēr emphasizes the masculinity of the referent (often the best contextual translation for this word is ‘husband’), but anthrōpos is the word ordinarily used to refer to a male human being in Greek. The student may easily confirm this by consulting a concordance of the Greek New Testament, and this masculine sense is duly indicated in all the standard Greek lexicons. But anthrōpos is not used in reference to an individual female . . . Whenever a particular person is introduced as an anthrōpos, that person is invariably male”. [Footnote: Michael D. Marlowe, “The Ambiguity of ‘anthropos’,” 2003.]

Timothy was to pass on the responsibility for guarding and disseminating the treasure of the gospel to “faithful men” (2 Tim. 2:2).

Comment (19a) “there is no justification for this in New Testament Greek, as the following extract shows”

The quotation cited from Michael Marlowe explains what anthrōpos means in the singular. That is not the issue. The issue is what does anthrōpos mean when it is used in the plural, i.e. anthrōpoi.

Comment (19b) If there is “no justification” for translating anthrōpoi as “people”, the translators of the following versions of 2 Timothy 2:1-2 beg to differ. Emphasis mine.

New Revised Standard Version

You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.  (NRSV)

New International Version

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (NIV)

Disciples’ Literal New Testament

Therefore you, my child, become-strong in the grace in Christ Jesus. And the things which you heard from me through many witnesses, these things deposit with faithful people who will be competent to teach others also. (DLNT)

Complete Jewish Bible

So then, you, my son, be empowered by the grace that comes from the Messiah Yeshua. And the things you heard from me, which were supported by many witnesses, these things commit to faithful people, such as will be competent to teach others also. (Complete Jewish Bible)

Good News Translation

As for you, my son, be strong through the grace that is ours in union with Christ Jesus. Take the teachings that you heard me proclaim in the presence of many witnesses, and entrust them to reliable people, who will be able to teach others also. (Good New Translation)

By contrast:

21st Century King James Version

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, commit thou the same to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.

                                                            (21st Century King James Version)

English Standard Version

You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men,* who will be able to teach others also. (ESV)

[* Footnote: 2 Timothy 2:2 The Greek word anthropoi can refer to both men and women, depending on the context

Comment (19c)

The ESV footnote explains the reason for the differences: “The Greek word anthropoi can refer to both men and women, depending on the context”.

Because translators of the past assumed Paul was resolutely opposed to women teaching (citing 1 Timothy 2:12), they assumed that Paul could not have meant “people”, and therefore said “men”.

Comment (19d)

I decided to look for myself, using Young’s Concordance. I recommend that others do the research for themselves and see what they conclude. You don’t need to know any Greek. Look at Young’s Concordance under “17. A man, a human being, ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos”. Then look at every instance of the word in the plural, i.e. look for “men”. Young’s is based on the KJV.

I looked at every example of “men”, which is anthrōpoi (plural of anthrōpos) in the New Testament. Don’t take my word for it, try it yourself.  

My conclusion is that in the plural “men” anthrōpoi almost always means “people” not “men (masculine)”.

For example:

And he [Jesus] said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matthew 4:19, RSV)

Is Jesus saying that he wants only male followers? Or is NIV correct (though less elegant)?

‘Come, follow me,’ Jesus said, ‘and I will send you out to fish for people.’ (NIV)

I then looked at all the letters of Paul. I did a count, and conclude that Paul uses anthrōpoi about 50 times. In nearly all of these, he means “people”, “men and women”, not “men” (masculine).

For example:

… on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:16, RSV)

This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2:16, NIV)

Does God judge the secrets of men only, or are women included?

When we come to 1 Timothy, we observe that Paul carefully makes a distinction between anthrōpoi, meaning people, and andres, which means “men” masculine. The distinction is not clear from RSV, but the modern translations do make it clear:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men [anthrōpoi], for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men [anthrōpoi] to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men [anthrōpoi], the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I desire then that in every place the men [andres] should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling;  also that women …  (1 Timothy 2:1-9)

Note how Paul changes from anthrōpoi to andres when he wishes to specify men (masculine). This point is often made by Christadelphian writers who wish to point out (correctly) that the word andres is used for men in contrast to women on 1 Timothy 2:9.

Observe how this is translated in the NIV:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people [anthrōpoi] – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people [anthrōpoi] to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind [anthrōpoi], the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people [anthrōpoi]. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle – I am telling the truth, I am not lying – and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Therefore I want the men [andres] everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly …

                                                                                    (1 Timothy 2:1-9, NIV)

Paul is consistent. He twice more uses anthrōpoi, in 1 Timothy 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:9 in the sense of people, not men (masculine). Compare RSV (“men” with NIV (“people”).

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men [anthrōpoi] into ruin and destruction.                                                              (1 Timothy 6:9, RSV)

Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people [anthrōpoi] into ruin and destruction.                                                                (1 Timothy 6:9, NIV)

Paul clearly knows and uses the distinction between anthrōpoi (“people”, i.e. “men and women”) and andres (“men” masculine).

 

So, when we examine 2 Timothy 2:2, why should we not consider that Paul deliberately decides to say anthrōpoi instead of andres? i.e. he does mean “faithful people who will be able to teach others” rather than “faithful men”?

Compare:

and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men [anthrōpoi] who will be able to teach others also. 

                                                                                    (2 Timothy 2:2, RSV)

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people [anthrōpoi] who will also be qualified to teach others.                                                                        (2 Timothy 2:2, NIV)

The other ‘pastoral epistle,’ Titus continues, to observe the usage of [anthrōpoi] = “people”.

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men [anthrōpoi], 

training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world…   (Titus 2:11-12, RSV)

 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people [anthrōpoi]. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives…   (Titus 2:11-12, NIV)

Paul consistently uses anthrōpoi when he wishes to refer to people in general; he uses andres when he wishes to mean men (masculine) as distinct from women, e.g. in Ephesians:

husbands [andres] should love their wives as their own bodies

                                                            (Ephesians 5:28, RSV).

Translations, therefore, which say “faithful people” or “reliable people” are in line with the normal Greek as used by Paul.

Comment (20) Two Internet sites are referenced in support of the position taken in this Testimony article:

(1) http://www.bible-researcher.com/adelphos.html

This is by Michael Marlowe in 2004 and opposes the usage of modern translators in translating adelphoi as “brothers and sisters”. We consider this further below.

(2) http://cbmresources.org/index.php/index.html/_/studies/rightly-dividing-the-word-a-review-of-argumen-r25

This is a specific critique of our book All One in Christ Jesus. We debated at length on the Internet with the writer, and in preparing the 2010 version of our book we took his comments into consideration where we felt it appropriate. I note too that this site quotes the NET Bible[6] as if correcting our book, but the two passages concerning adelphoi and anthrōpoi, both say, as we say in All One:

What should you do then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church.

(1 Corinthians 14: 26, New English Translation, emphasis mine)

And entrust what you heard me say  ^{▼ in the presence of many others as witnesses  ▼ to faithful people} 

And entrust what you heard me say  ^{▼ in the presence of many others as witnesses  ▼ to faithful people} 

And entrust what you heard me say  ^{▼ in the presence of many others as witnesses  ▼ to faithful people} 

… entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well. [Footnote: Grk “faithful men”; but here ἀνθρώποις anthrōpois is generic, referring to both men and women.]

            (2 Timothy 2:2, New English Translation, emphasis mine)

Comment (20a) Michael Marlow on adelphos (“brother”) and adelphoi (“brothers”)

This article is a specific criticism of translators of the modern versions where adelphoi is translated as “brothers and sisters”. He accuses the translators of “political correctness”. The article provides useful background information. No doubt Michael Marlowe is a better Greek scholar than I, but nevertheless I consider his basic argument is mistaken for the following reasons:

Comment (20b) “primarily to men”

 … the apostles directed their attention primarily to the men, and used language which reflected this orientation. There is no intent to “exclude women,” but the habits of speech reflect a male orientation.                                                      (Michael D. Marlowe)

There is a difference between “habits of speech” which “reflect a male orientation” and saying that “the apostles directed their attention primarily to the men”.

The habits of speech are the manner in which Latin and Greek, and some modern languages too, use the masculine plural in statements which are addressed to men and women together. For example, in Romans Paul addresses all the believers to whom he is writing as agapētoi (“To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints”.) Though not obvious in English, “all|”, “beloved” and “saints” are masculine plural. That is the way languages work. But that does not mean that the letter to the Romans is directed “primarily to the men”. The detailed comments: “all of you”, “you in my prayers”, “I long to see you”, “that you and I may be mutually encouraged” can most naturally be understood to be addressed to all the brothers and sisters in Rome.

Comment (20c)

In defence of his “directed primarily to men” argument, Michael D. Marlowe writes, on 1 Corinthians 7:

… further on in the chapter we see the usual habit of addressing men directly and women indirectly–“if you marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.” (Verse 28. The man is addressed with second-person forms of the verbs, and the woman is referred to in the third person.) There is no escaping the fact that this feature of discourse is habitual in Paul’s letters and throughout the Bible. (Michael D. Marlowe)

What Michael Marlow asserts by this is that Paul speaks directly to men but indirectly to women.

But is this true? Earlier in the same chapter, Paul speaks indirectly about both (using 3rd person[7]), then he addresses first a wife, then a husband – using 2nd person verbs:

For the unbelieving husband is consecrated [3rd person singular] through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband [3rd person singular]…. Wife, how do you know [2nd person singular] whether you will save [2nd person singular] your husband? Husband, how do you know [2nd person singular] whether you will save [2nd person singular] your wife?        (1 Corinthians 7:14-16)

and further on he refers to men and women in the third person, and then switches to 2nd person to them both:

 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have [3rd person singular] his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give [3rd person singular] to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule [3rd person singular] over her own body, but the husband does [3rd person singular]; likewise the husband does not rule [3rd person singular] over his own body, but the wife does [3rd person singular]. Do not refuse [2nd person plural] one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote [2nd person plural] yourselves to prayer; but then come [2nd person plural] together again…    

                                                                                    (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

I consider therefore that Paul addresses all the believers, but within those believers he addresses his remarks to male or female or both, as appropriate, sometimes using second person and sometimes third.

                                                                                                                                   

Comment (20d) 1 Corinthians 14

Sometimes it is important to recognize that the writer is focusing on males when he addresses the congregation. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:39 Paul says, “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy,” but in verses 34-35 he says “women should keep silent in the churches” and “it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Clearly, the vocative adelphoi in verse 39 must not be gender-inclusive. It makes no sense for Paul to be telling the sisters to “be eager to prophesy” in church after he has prohibited them from speaking. But if someone is reading a gender-neutralized Bible version which always gives an “inclusive” rendering for adelphoi, he will certainly be thrown off track at this point, because the translation gives a false impression of the “inclusivity” of the discourse.                                                                    (Michael D. Marlowe)

Michael Marlowe accuses translators of bias, but the same could be said of himself.  Which illustrates the problem for all of us, because each person will translate according to his or her own understanding of the meaning.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

If Paul has used adelphoi meaning “brothers and sisters” in previous passages, as is asserted by the NIV translators in their footnote to 1 Corinthians 1:10,[8] then the problem in 1 Corinthians 14 concerns verses 34 and 35, not verse 39. The more so if Paul consistently uses “brother and sisters” in 1 Corinthians 14:26:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.                                                            (1 Corinthians 14:26, emphasis mine)

Comment (20e)

Michael Marlowe’s critique, written in 2004, is of the translators of the inclusive language revision of the NIV called the TNIV. In preparing the next revision of the NIV (published in 2011), the translators were well aware of the criticism of Michael Marlowe and others. It was reported at the time that they had come under pressure from the conservative churches in the Southern United States to retract the inclusive language.

I fully expected, therefore that the NIV (2011) would have done so.

It is significant that the translators refused to bow to pressure. They produced what they honestly consider to be an accurate translation:

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers.

                                                                                    (Preface to 2011 NIV, page xv)

I disagree with Michael Marlowe’s assessment. It is easy to find it on the Internet and I suggest people read it for themselves and make up their own minds.

Comment (21) “no justification from the Scriptures”

Conclusion

The argument for sisters speaking, reading, praying, and leading ecclesias has no justification from the Scriptures. Instead it is a prime example of the temptation to amend our beliefs in order to fit in with the world around us. The whole of Scripture teaches us that we will never fit into this world. On the contrary, in that same last letter the Apostle Paul warns that in the last days we must expect to be persecuted for our faith by those who do not wish to accept it:

“evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed . . . All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God [in the first instance Timothy] may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:13-17).

We need to hold fast to the Scriptures, in this as in all other matters.

Comment (21a) “no justification from the Scriptures”

On the contrary, there is good justification from Scripture for “sisters peaking, reading, praying, and leading ecclesias” provided we don’t read into the Scriptures pre-existing ideas of male leadership, and provided we read the apparently restrictive verses in context, as we do with the verses which restrict men.

Comment (21b) “We need to hold fast to the Scriptures”

I think I have demonstrated, regrettably, that there is almost no holding fast to the Scriptures in this article. There is an a priori prejudice against women’s service to Christ, part of a long tradition by churches over the centuries.

Comment (21c) I have sought to examine this article by the criteria expressed at the beginning:

“the only arbiter of the truth which should govern our actions is God’s Word. … no opinions are worth more than the straightforward teaching of Scripture. So what does the Word of God say?”

I think I have demonstrated that this article does not meet these criteria.

Comment (21d) If anything I have written above is incorrect, I apologise. If anything can be demonstrated to be incorrect, I will happily retract it.

Comment (21e) I know the writer and I esteem him as a long-serving brother of integrity. What I have written, is written in sadness, and I hope he will reconsider his opposition to the public offering of Christian service by sisters.

Comment (21f) Because this Testimony article is in the public domain, I feel it appropriate also to have placed this Scriptural critique in public.

Ian McHaffie

26 July 2020

mchaffie1@icloud.com

---

[1] The word “role” is never used in the Bible and has crept into recent Christadelphian literature. It is imported from the world of theatre and from modern sociology, and has been used extensively in America by those who argue for restrictions on women’s activity. It lends an air of seeming respectability to discrimination: women are spiritually equal, but have different roles from those of men. It is not a biblical concept. It gives an impression that we are playing a part on a stage rather than working in service to our Lord and to one another. We would do well to avoid using the word in our discussions.

[2] Published in 2010 and a copy distributed to each ecclesia. It is available in printed form or as a free download from:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mzf99hi947nwfss/All%20One%20in%20Christ%20Jesus%202019.pdf?dl=0

[3] Please see First Corinthians 11:2-16 – Head covering in Bible times and the application today, available as a printed book or as a free download:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yewn5cqknl6n6db/1%20Corinthians%2011%207%20Jul%202020%20colour.pdf?dl=0

[4] Vocative is a grammatical term to describe a noun used to address someone. For example: “Mary, please phone tonight” or “John, time for your tea.” “Mary” and “John” are vocatives.

[5] See pages 79-81 of First Corinthians 11:2-16 – Head covering in Bible times and the application today, available as a printed book or as a free download:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yewn5cqknl6n6db/1%20Corinthians%2011%207%20Jul%202020%20colour.pdf?dl=0

[6] “The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages - who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator's shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives.”

From https://www.bible.com/versions/107-net-new-english-translation

[7] These grammatical terms refer to: “I” (1st person singular), “You” – or “Thou” in Old English – (2nd person singular), “he”, “she”, “it” (3rd person singular); “we” (1st person plural), “you” (2nd person plural), “they” (3rd person plural).

[8]1 Corinthians 1:10 The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 11 and 26; and in 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 6:8; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 6, 50, 58; 16:15, 20.