Last week we began a review of material put together by Kerry Hadley of the West Orange Church of Christ. This 51 pages of material is particularly dangerous since it is misleading. It misrepresents itself in three significant ways:
1. It makes a pretense at being scholarly, but it is not. Just citing sources for a few points does not mean that sources are provided for some of the most crucial (or even outlandish) ideas. Also, the quality of the sources cited in this work is substandard. Almost all of them are from denominational scholars. What, therefore, appears to have an air of scholarship is actually a rather haphazard, slipshod way of approaching the subject.
2. The second false impression is that the author is attempting to give a fair analysis when nothing could be further from the truth. He begins the study by including several legitimate principles with regard to studying the Bible, but then he violates these principles consistently. Hadley may have convinced himself that he is treating the topic fairly, but if so, he is alone in this assessment.
Examples of these two points are seen in the comments that are made at the end of the discussion concerning Phoebe. He did his best to convince the reader that she was a deaconess, but many of the translations he cited gave their opinion on the matter rather than translating the word as “servant,” as it should be, since absolutely nothing in the text suggests that she held an “office” comparable to that of a deacon.
Now this discussion concerns Romans 16:1, but Hadley includes a reference to a passage that should have been discussed later: “1 Timothy 3:13 may very likely indicate an order of female deacons/servants in the early church” (20). This is the style of writing that evolutionists use: “It may very likely indicate….”
When the reader sees those words, the first reaction ought to be, “It may not be the case, either.” All this type of “explanation” gives is what the possibilities might be. No one can build a case on possibilities. A conclusion must be built on evidence. To the above statement, Hadley attaches footnote 14, which says: “The Greek word, gune [sic] can mean either wives or women” (20). While true, it only endorses the possibility; it still does not prove the case. In 1 Timothy 3:13, however, the Greek word gune refers to the wives of the elders and the deacons.
After offering no substantial proof for his case, Hadley thinks that complementarians (those who believe that the Bible teaches that men should lead) should have no problem with women being deacons, since “the office of a deacon does not carry ’authority’ or ‘oversight’” (20). Deacons do have authority, however, from the elders to accomplish whatever job they may have been given. Hadley should not speak for complementarians; he should let them speak for themselves; they do not agree with his assessment.
Andronicus and Junias
Continuing his evaluation of Romans 16, Hadley arrives at verse 7 and immediately loses all semblance of rationality, writing: “In verse 7 he greets Andronicus and Junia (note ‘miscorrection’ in NIV), his relatives…. Paul says that his relatives were apostles” (21). It is amazing that so few words could be so full of error.
1. The Greek word translated as “kinsmen” is used four times by Paul in the Roman letter (9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). There is no reason to think that in any of these instances these were anybody but Paul’s fellow Jews. If they were actually close relatives (brothers, uncles, or cousins), one would expect some kind of further acknowledgement, which is absent. To refer to them as relatives is an unwarranted assumption.
2. Hadley stated unequivocally that the NIV was wrong for using “Junias,” but he does not state the reason for that assessment. Berry’s Interlinear uses “Junias” and does not list any textual variations. Even so, two opinions do exist over whether it should be Junias (a male) or Junia (a female). What difference does it make? For most of us, it does not really matter, but for those trying to find authority for women to lead in the church, it is important because of the next point. They cannot look at the passage dispassionately; they have a vested interest in the result—kind of like having a text out of context for a pretext.
3. The reason Junia must be a woman is that being a male would ruin the next faulty claim, which is that the two are apostles. This assertion is made apart from any foundation or evidence whatsoever. According to Hadley and various of his cohorts, Junia was an apostle! Think about the absurdity of this heretical claim. Jesus knew many devout women whom He could have selected to be an apostle, yet He never saw fit to choose even one for that purpose. He waited until years later, after His resurrection to select not one but three more apostles—Andonicus, Junia, and Paul.
Such thoughts are totally an effort to put something into the text (eisegesis). Although technically Andronicus and Junias could be apostles (the construction allows for it), most scholars think that these two were noteworthy and had come to the apostles’ attention. The reason is simple: After Matthias was selected to replace Judas, the Scriptures do not mention any other apostles being chosen besides Paul, as one born out of due time (1 Cor. 15:8f). Should Paul not have said that he was at least the third one born out of due time?
Most people would understand this passage to mean that these two had caught the attention of the apostles for their excellent work—not that they were outstanding apostles. Yet these imaginative explanations form the basis for the role of women as some brethren would like it to be. Phoebe may have been a deaconess; Junias may be Junia, and she may be an apostle. Is that the kind of authority that inspires confidence?
From what the reader knows of the Scriptures, he should ask himself how much he agrees with the following sentence in the conclusion: “Both men and women were servants, missionaries, prophets, apostles and proclaimers” (21-22)? Only two out of five are correct—servants and prophets. The women who prophesied had a limited sphere of influence, however. No evidence exists to indicate that they prophesied in the presence of men. Although women could be proclaimers to other women, nothing is said about them doing so publicly to men after the establishment of the church. We do read of women who accompanied Jesus (Luke 8:1). Are they called missionaries? No. The idea that women were apostles is ludicrous.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Yet it is against this background that we are to study the rest of the material. Hadley acknowledges that many interpretations of 1 Corinthians have been done but that he will “provide a reasonable, basic exegesis…” (23). Hmm. To comment briefly, this sentence is misleading: “The head covering is the woman’s ‘authority’(exousia [sic]) to pray and prophesy in a public gathering while demonstrating the proper respect for her husband/head” (27). The problem is that Paul does not say that these instructions apply to a public gathering. These could just as easily be private gatherings of women, which would account for the fact that some chose not to wear the veil. They may have thought that, without men present, they did not need the veils. Evidence for this view lies in the fact that, after finishing this discussion in verse 16, Paul makes it clear that he is now going to deal with what had been occurring in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20).
The problem with this study is that assumptions appear to equal proof. The conclusion of this section states that in Corinth “both men and women were permitted to exercise their spiritual gifts in their assemblies” (28). Someone needs to point out the obvious to Mr. Hadley—no one is entitled to assume the very thing that needs to be proved! The purpose of the study is to discover what the roles of men and women in the church were, yet it seems clear that he has already reached the decision before presenting any evidence. No one can legitimately draw the conclusion that he does without proving that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is referring to a mixed assembly. Nothing indicates that women are doing anything in the assembly whatsoever whereas Paul makes it clear that he does refer to the assembly when speaking of the Lord’s Supper, beginning in 1 Corinthians 11:17, and in the entire discussion that takes place in 1 Corinthians 14 (see verses 16, 19, 23, 26, 34). Where are such clear-cut evidences of the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?
1 Corinthians 14:26-40
This section of the study is interesting, if not confusing. The author considers the Greek text and provides information about the Greek language in an effort to make a convincing argument that turns out to be invalid. The upshot of it is that women can lead in prayer and in teaching in the assembly. Now since the text clearly teaches otherwise (except for those with a pretext), one wonders how anyone could arrive at this conclusion (Isa. 5:20). Below is Hadley’s rationale.
As he comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34, “Let your wom-en keep silent in the church,” his first comment is: “A few manuscripts place 34-35 behind verse 40 (Latin, Western). None delete it” (30). How conversant is the author with the study of New Testament texts? He does not tell us where he came across this bit of information. The majority of commentaries make no mention of this obscure fact, including the highly regarded Pulpit Commentary.
This observation is tied to the next two, in which Hadley affirms that there seems “to be an interruption in the flow between verses 33 and 37” and “some believe that it was added into the text by a copyist” (30). The only source cited for these three points is Gordon Fee and his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Notice that Hadley did not go to brethren who have studied and researched the books of the Bible but to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome of the meaning of these verses. According to the Wikipedia, “Fee is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God (AG) and unabashedly identifies himself as Pentecostal.” He is also the son of an Assemblies of God minister. Pentecostals have long defied what the Bible teaches with respect to the role of women. Did it never occur to Hadley that Fee’s upbringing and current affiliations might color his “commentary”? It should have.
The idea that verses 34-36 do not belong where they are because some obscure texts place it elsewhere is ridiculous. No reputable scholar builds a case on what a few isolated texts have when the vast majority are in agreement. The idea that those verses interrupt the flow of the text is speculative. Besides, the same thing could be done in the next chapter; omit verses 20-28 (where Paul introduces another thought before returning to his main line of reasoning), and the same conclusion could be drawn. How many legitimate scholars think the verses were inserted—one or two out of thousands? Yet this is what the case for women exercising authority that God has not given them rests upon (fringe theories).
Other Fruit Loopian ideas are also suggested before Hadley sets forth his thesis, which is that Paul is addressing three categories of people who need to be silent in the church. According to the author, Paul merely wanted to shush three categories of individuals: tongue speakers without interpreters, prophets interrupted by another with a new revelation, and wives of the prophets (vs. 28-34). The reason for the first two of these is to eliminate confusion. No one could understand a tongue-speaker’s message unless someone interpreted the message. The solution, then, was that the one with that gift could only use it in the assembly if someone could interpret what he said. Likewise, so that several people were not trying to prophesy at the same time, the first speaker should keep silent and let the second one proceed.
But what about verses 34-35? It is clear that the main point was for women to keep silent with respect to speaking in the assembly. They could neither teach nor even ask a question. Notice in the two verses below that the reason for the complaint is not that they disrupted things but that they were speaking, period.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
That certain women disrupted worship with their questions is undoubtedly true, but it is evident that Paul is concerned with more than the interruptions. Women were not only to be submissive; they were to be silent. It would take help to miss the point that, regardless of what prompted Paul to say it, the women were to be silent, and it was shameful for them to speak in the assembly. The fact that he did not bring up this point previously (11:2-16) adds credence to the fact that in that text the assembly was not under discussion.
Hadley, however, tries to minimize these verses by saying they only deal with disruption. The text says otherwise. The issue is not one of simply interrupting the assembly but speaking in it.
Hadley’s conclusion in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40:
The first conclusion that Hadley offers is: “Paul is not commanding total silence upon all women at all times” (32). The fact is, however, that in the assembly, women were not to speak or even ask questions. Obviously, Paul did not forbid them to sing—something men and women do at the same time.
The second conclusion is totally false:
The assemblies of the New Testament church were gatherings in which people of both sexes were involved in mutual sharing of their gifts for the building up of the church. Men and women were both permitted to participate as long as they did so in an orderly manner (14:39) [sic] (32).
The author probably meant verse 40, but he is wrong in his main point because he never proved it or presented adequate evidence. He is combining 1 Corinthians 11 with 14 in some sort of mystical way in which he gets the outcome he desires (pretext). The text under discussion does not even hint that a woman was exercising any gift in the assembly. Hadley is not rightly dividing the Word of God. His final point also lacks any evidence or merit whatsoever.
This included praying, sharing prophecies, sharing “hymns (Psalms), interpreting, and instructing.” (14:26) (32).
The cited verse 26 asks how it is that, when they came together, “each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation”? Is this supposed to imply that women were leading the worship? If the women were permitted to exercise their gifts in the assembly, then why would Paul make such a point about them being quiet with regard to even a question? Could none of the women prophesy and their husbands interrupt them? No, the men were leading the worship, but some of the women wanted to speak up anyway—in the guise of asking questions. Paul forbade them to do so. Nothing indicates that women were leading the worship in the assembly, and verses 34-35 imply that they were not. One cannot sneak in authorization through this surreptitious means.