Despite the invitation to engage in honest Bible study, where we look at what the passage actually says instead of what we might want it to say, Kerry Hadley has clearly adopted the latter, invalid approach. Now, as we come to the key text in 1 Timothy 2, the reader can already anticipate that he is going to do what Peter calls “wrest” (“twist”) the Scriptures to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
First, however, Hadley presents nearly five pages of background material that, though no sources are cited, are valid—except for a statement he makes twice, concerning women and prayer. He seems to think that 1 Timothy 2:8-10 is a passage that speaks about men and women leading in prayer, although he does not state it outright. What he does say is that the women should “also carry out the command (to pray…in like manner, similarly)” (38).
This passage does not authorize women to direct males in prayer. Paul writes: “Therefore, I desire that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Tim. 2:8). In other words, everywhere that a prayer is to be led, it is the male’s responsibility to do so (unless it is a gathering of women). The word from which man is translated is male only—not anthropos, the word often translated ”man” or “mankind,” which includes both male and female.
The next two verses do not speak of women leading in prayer at all; they talk about her manner of dress. Hadley seems to assume that “in like manner” refers to the way women lead prayers, but the most one could conclude is that Paul refers to their holy and humble attitude while they are praying (that is, following the words of the one leading the prayer). In other words, in like manner refers to the way an action is carried out; it cannot imply that they are doing the same action (that is, leading the prayers). (Some are not following the part about dressing modestly, either.)
1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
This passage certainly seems straightforward and is not one that would require much explanation—unless, of course, the reader does not like what it says. Egalitarians do not like it, so they invent a number of interesting ways of trying to “explain away” the obvious meaning of the text. Hadley sets forth their view, which consists of a series of facts that do not justify the conclusion.
The first of these facts is that Paul warned brethren against false teachers (1:3, 10). Second, these false teachers targeted women (39). Well, it did not take long to run into a problem with this theory, did it? Paul makes no mention of women being targeted in this letter. The passage cited is from 2 Timothy, which most scholars date two years later. Nothing in the first letter to Timothy indicates that women were being targeted. This egalitarian theory is already built upon assumptions that cannot be proven and is, therefore, already faulty—as is the conclusion:
Thus, Paul is not prohibiting all women from teaching, only women who were influenced by this false teaching. (The principle then is that “those most susceptible to false teaching should not teach”) (39).
And this has what to do with Adam being formed first, before Eve? If the text means what Hadley says (which no one upon reading it would conclude), then why does the text not say those words?
And where did this gem of an explanation originate? The source cited is Two Views, which contains several essays by Craig S. Keener, who has a Ph.D. from Duke University and is a professor of New Testament at Palmer Seminary (Wynnewood, Pennsylvania). One would have to have a Ph.D. to misunderstand the text to this extent.
Not a Universal Text?
The next argument is that “there are other situation-specific commands in this text which are not generally recognized as universally binding” (39). The only one from this text that is actually cited is verse 9. Really? Then it is all right for women to adorn themselves in immodest apparel? Do egalitarians really want to go there? No rationale is given to explain why this command was situational and has no relevance for today.
Another example cited pertains to the support of widows in chapter 5:9-13, which would hardly qualify as being in this text, but why would it not be universally binding? Slaves obeying their masters is another supposed relevant text (6:1-2), but if that same situation occurs today, it would still be binding, and some of the principles rightly apply to employer-employee relationships. Other examples nowhere near these verses are also cited, but they do not establish the egalitarian case, either.
Worse yet is the attitude that the Scriptures are irrelevant to mankind today. The very next item that Paul deals with in this epistle is the qualifications of elders and deacons. Will someone argue that Paul based these qualifications on the culture of the day and that they are situation-specific, also? To make such a claim might be done to justify manmade councils and national conventions where delegates vainly attempt to legislate for God. “Back in the first century, they didn’t see a need for broader church government, as we do today.” One can, with techniques like these, do away with any passage that does not coincide with the way modern man wants to do things.
The next statement is a summary of the egalitarian position by Rebecca Groothuis (Hadley erroneously lists her last name as Groothius). Apparently, avoiding sound brethren and reliable commentaries were insufficient in accumulating this data. Now we have quoted someone with an obvious bias in this matter. She argues that “…1 Timothy 2:11-15 can legitimately be understood as a prohibition relevant in a historically specific circumstance…” (30). Such is precisely the problem. Nothing in the way of compelling evidence has been provided that would cause anyone—who did not have this conclusion in mind from the outset—to arrive at this destination No one simply reading the passage would ever glean such a faulty premise. The weakness of this position is also seen in its conclusion:
In other words, it ought to be at least acknowledged, that the traditionalist interpretation is debatable on biblical grounds. This being the case, we should give the benefit of the doubt to any woman who is called to and qualified for pastoral leadership (39).
Sorry. No such acknowledgement is coming due to the utter lack of evidence for the egalitarian position. These opponents of God’s Word are like defense attorneys who have no case but are trying to throw up enough data in the hopes that some of it will stick, but it only confuses people. All they have is the misapplication of Galatians 3:27 and several assumptions, none of which are well-founded. “Oh, but if a woman feels called to pastoral leadership….” Thanks for the modern-day example of women being deceived.
The final egalitarian note actually claims that Paul is presenting “an analogy between Eve and the easily deceived women of Ephesus (like most of the women of his day)” (40). Wow! Eve does not represent all women—just those easily deceived. What does Adam represent—just those men who refuse to exercise leadership and stop their wives from sinning? These comments are nothing more than trying to put into the text what some want it to say (eisegesis), which is something a good Bible student is not supposed to do. The proper approach is to draw out the text’s meaning.
In stating the complementarian view, Hadley also errs when he says that most of us “believe that Paul’s prohibition refers to the office of elder/pastor” (40). No, Paul began with prayer (v. 8) and then moved to teaching and exercising authority. It is obvious to most people that Paul is arguing for male leadership in spiritual matters, period.
After listing these two main views, Hadley draws four conclusions. The first one states that both “views are based in careful exegesis of scripture [sic]” (41). This is totally false; the egalitarian view has no substance whatsoever. It is obvious that Hadley cannot tell the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, which calls into question this entire study.
His second conclusion claims that both “sides agree that the text does not prohibit women from all teaching in all situations” (41). Women may teach other women and children. The prohibition does preclude women from teaching men in all worship situations. Third, he claims that not “all forms of ‘teaching’ are viewed as authoritative.” He would need to define this assertion more fully before a response could be given.
His final conclusion is: “Even in the Complementarian viewpoint, the idea that participation in worship equals exercising authority does not have scriptural [sic] support” (41). What does he mean? When women (and the other men who are not leading the songs) sing, they are all participating. Likewise, when one man leads in prayer, all are participating. Participation obviously does not mean leadership. Is it possible that Hadley meant to say, “Women participate by leading prayers and songs, yet complementarians do not object”? Such a conclusion would be totally false!
Submission
The section on “submission” follows the same dangerous trend as everything in this study that precedes it. Several pages of good observations and insights will be garnished with error—probably with a view toward lulling the reader into thinking all of the information is correct. Hadley falls prey to the old liberal argument regarding Ephesians 5:22. He claims that the “KEY PASSAGE to understanding what follows in 5:22-6:9 is Ephesians 5:21” (42). Echoing the voice of liberals past, he adds that there “is no verb in verse 22, so it must be supplied from verse 21” (42). The argument, then, is that Ephesians 5:22 simply illustrates ways of husbands and wives submitting to each other.
Anyone who knows either Greek or English would know that this claim is not so. In the first place, verse 21 does not have a main verb; it contains only a present participle, which ruins the whole theory. In fact, in verses 19-21 the reader will notice several present participles, all modifying the main verb, filled, from verse 18: “be filled with the spirit.” The participles all end in –ing, and the reader can easily find them for himself: speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, submitting. The idea that submitting would be the main verb for the next paragraph is laughable.
The second problem with Hadley’s thesis is that Ephesians 5:22 does have a main verb, the imperative form translated “submit.” Although a manuscript or two has a variation, all of them have a main verb. Verse 25 contains another imperative, translated “love.” The KEY PASSAGE has proven to be a bust and demonstrates that one must be careful when copying the material of others: always look at the text before drawing someone else’s conclusions and employing erroneous arguments.
The definition of the husband being head of the wife excludes any reference to authority. Hadley argues that being the head involves being a servant, being patient, leading by example, loving the wife as his own body, nurturing and caring for her, and being sacrificial (45). Okay, but what about any authority? Hadley already said: “The husband’s headship in the marriage relationship should reflect Christ’s headship of his [sic] church.” Well, then, why is Matthew 28:18 omitted? “All authority has been given Me in heaven and on earth.” Does the husband’s headship give him any authority or decision-making power at all? If so, it is overlooked in this study. Hadley likes to think of “mutual submission” (46), but the passage does not so teach; it teaches submission for the wife and love for the husband.
Conclusions
The author of this study advises that other references have been left out of this written study (47), but we will assume that it was of the same low caliber as this material—or worse. One usually publishes the best of what he has so that others will be able to use it.
In the concluding pages of the study, Hadley reiterates all the false conclusions previously and erroneously drawn, such as that in Christ the equality of man and woman that was lost as a result of sin was restored (48). As the apostle Paul pointed out, man was designed for leadership from the beginning; God made him first (1 Tim. 2:13). Woman did not lose leadership privileges entirely because of sin; the sin did demonstrate why God had selected the male in the first place. In Christ, man still has the leadership role. Besides, if Hadley believed his own argument, he would not deny women serving as elders (50). The fact is that Jesus submits to the will of the Father; so does the Holy Spirit. Yet they are not inferior, and they certainly did not lose “equality” due to sin. Equality exists even when roles are different.
In the summary of women in the Old and New Testaments, additional errors are made. Hadley asserts that Huldah’s “prophecies and wisdom guided Josiah’s reforms” (49). No such thing happened. They were in the process of reforming the nation when they found the book of the law. Josiah sent men to Huldah to verify that the words of destruction were, in fact, going to come to pass. Her answer was that they would—but not upon Josiah since he had possessed a tender heart and humbled himself before God (2 Kings 22:1-20). Hadley also asserts that both men and women were baptized in the Holy Spirit (49). Such did not occur on the Day of Pentecost; where is the proof for this assertion?
Also not proven is the allegation that women prayed and prophesied in the assembly, that women (note the plural) were identified as deacon (when Phoebe was actually called “a servant of the church,” there being no indication that she held a “church office”), and that women were called apostles. What kind of a foundation does he have for his conclusions? Again, it is not quite sturdy enough to qualify as sand.
Yet Hadley protests that he has studied “this issue from all possible angles” (50). No, if he read any conservative scholars, he shows little evidence of it—not even to take issue with their positions. If he had read material from conservatives, he would not have made the errors that riddle his study. He claims he had no prior agenda (50), but the absence of comments by those who uphold the truth are telling. He claims that his past conclusions were the result of “proof texting,” yet all the liberal ideas he set forth were precisely that. He says he cannot teach what the Word of God does not, but he stands guilty of doing just that with this material.
Notice what he opines what women can do. They can engage in: “Serving the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, performing baptisms, making announcements in the assembly, sharing testimonies or accounts of God’s work in one’s life, leading singing, reading scripture, or praying in the assembly” (50-51). [Does he realize those are all participles as in Ephesians 5:19-21)?] Furthermore, he says: “None of these activities violates any passage of scripture anywhere in the Bible” (51). On the contrary, Hadley has no authority for women to lead in any of these activities.
By the way, do they have testimonials at West Orange in Winter Garden? In the understatement of 2009 (when this material was published), Hadley allows that some brethren may disagree with him (we certainly pray they do). He calls, therefore, for mutual deference. What? Between truth and error? He can pray for unity of believers all he wants, but he has departed from the Word of God, and those who uphold it do not take his efforts to justify false doctrine lightly. Our prayer is that he will repent and that the eyes of the rest of the members there might be enlightened.