Resource Manager

Teaching supported from other passages of Scripture 8 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, ‘For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man.’ 1 Corinthians 14:34, ‘Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.’ 1 Timothy 2:13-14, ‘For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.’ 1 Peter 3:5-6, ‘For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so.’ From the relevant socio-historical background, we know that private associations were free to decide on their own codes of conduct even if these breached social norms, and that 1st century Christian women (whether Jews or Gentiles), would have had reasonable expectations of participating in the congregational worship as a result of their previous religious experiences. This being the case, Paul would have been aware of how his commandments concerning women sounded, and accordingly sought to soften the message.9 Egalitarian scholars have noted this particular feature of Paul's commandments, in the seven passages in which he gives commandments concerning the relationship of men and women in the ecclesia and the family using a formulated style. ‘In 11:11–12, however, he backtracks lest the Corinthians become confused and think that he implies that women are inferior to men. He is not attempting to establish a gender hierarchy that places women in a subordinate role. Since he argues from hierarchy to make his case about head coverings, he needs to caution against any misapplication of what he says. Women and men are interdependent in the Lord.’10 Walker provides a detailed analysis of these passages using the following formula.11 ‘a. General Statement, Assertion, or Command (vv 8–12) I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. b. Reason or Justification (vv 13–14) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. c. Mitigation, Softening of the Blow, or Saving Phrase (v 15) Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."12 (Jonathan Burke, 2010) ------- 8 ‘The second point to be considered is that at least four of the passages in question appeal to the OT, and particularly to the book of Genesis, to support their views regarding women. 1 Cor 11:7–9 cites the creation of Adam and Eve, 1 Tim 2:13–14 the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve, 1 Pet 3:6 the story of Sarah and Abraham, and 1 Cor 14:34 simply “the law.”11 This, too, suggests a common origin or source, or at least a common tradition, underlying the various passages in question.’ , ibid., pp. 104-105. 9 ‘a “mitigation,” “softening of the blow,” or “saving phrase” to make the statement, assertion, or command less offensive to women.’, ibid., p. 106. 10 Garland (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 508-509 (2003) 11 ‘In some passages, the pattern becomes more complex, and, at times, it is not clear whether element “c” is present at all. Thus, the pattern of 1 Pet 3:1–6 is ‘a’ (v 1a), ‘b’ (vv 1b–2), ‘a’ (vv 3–4a), ‘b’ (vv 4b–6a), with v 6b either a continuation of ‘b’ or perhaps a very subtle form of ‘c.’ The pattern of 1 Cor 14:34–35 is ‘a’ (v 34a), ‘b’ (v 34b), ‘a’ (v 34c), ‘b’ (v 34d), ‘a’ or possibly a subtle form of ‘c’ (v 35a),16 ‘b’ (v 35b). In Titus 2:4–5, the pattern is a simple ‘a’ (vv 4–5a), ‘b’ (v 5b), with ‘c’ absent altogether. Three of the passages introduce a somewhat modified form of element ‘c’ with a command to husbands that they love their wives. Thus, Col 3:18–19 follows the simple pattern, ‘a’ (v 18a), ‘b’ (v 18b), ‘c’ (v 19), while Eph 5:22–33 has the more complex pattern, ‘a’ (v 22), ‘b’ (v 23), ‘a’ (v 24), ‘c’ (vv 25–33a), ‘a’ (v 33b); and 1 Pet 3:1–7 has the pattern, ‘a’ (v 1a), ‘b’ (vv 1b–2), ‘a’ (vv 3–4a), ‘b’ (vv 4b–6 or perhaps 4b–6a with 6b a very very subtle form of ‘c’), ‘c’ (v 7). The analysis of 1 Cor 11:3–16 is again complicated by the question of the unity of the passage.17 If it is a single unit, then the pattern is apparently ‘a’ (vv 3–6), ‘b’ (vv 7–10), ‘c’ (vv 11–12), ‘b’ (vv 13–16), although the distinctions are not as clear here as they are elsewhere. If, however, the passage is divided into three pericopes, as has been suggested, then the following patterns emerge: “Pericope A” follows the pattern, ‘a’ (v 3), ‘b’ (vv 8–9), ‘c’ (vv 11–12); “Pericope B” the pattern, ‘a’ (vv 4–6), ‘b’ (vv 7,10,13,16), with no ‘c’; and “Pericope C” consists almost entirely of element ‘b,’ with ‘a’ only implied and ‘c’ absent altogether.18’, ibid., p. 107. 12 Walker, (egalitarian) ‘The “Theology of Woman’s Place” And the “Paulinist” Tradition’, Semeia (28.107), (1983). Handout_consistent.pdf

Paul’s Consistent Teaching on Sisters CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS ‘We would suggest there are indicators in the text itself, contextual markers, that are not there by accident but to guide us toward an objective meaning. An objective meaning is thus mediated by the text itself. The text’s indicators limit the possibilities so that the number of meanings available to the reader is not infinite.’1 CONSISTENT TEACHING Using specific rules of interpretation,2 seven passages have been identified as containing explicit teaching on the subject of the roles and relationship with men, of women in the ecclesia and the family. These passages are widely accepted among complementarians, egalitarians, and unaligned commentators as passages containing such explicit teaching, and all seven passages share a common theme.3 4 Specific content is found repeated consistently within these passages.5 This is not a matter of one or two verses, nor an isolated text of Scripture.6 Headship 1 Corinthians 11:3, ‘the man is the head of a woman’ Ephesians 5:23, ‘the husband is the head of the wife Submission 1 Corinthians 14:34: ‘let them be in submission’ Ephesians 5:22: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord’7 Colossians 3:18: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands’ 1 Timothy 211: ‘A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness’ Titus 2:5: ‘being subject to their own husbands’ 1 Peter 3:1, ‘wives, be subject to your own husbands.’ Silence & quietness 1 Corinthians 14:3: ‘women should be silent in the churches’ Ephesians 5:24: ‘wives should submit to their husbands in everything’ 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘She must remain quiet’ Not permitted 1 Corinthians 14:34: ‘they are not permitted to speak’ 1 Corinthians 14:35: ‘it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church’ 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man’ ------- 1 Dockery, ‘Biblical interpretation then and now: Contemporary hermeneutics in the light of the early church’, p. (1992) 2‘We consider the methods printed by Dr Thomas and from your own website (see below) to be sound, and we reckon we have followed them.’, ‘Reply 1’, p. 64 (February 7, 2008) 3 Walker (egalitarian), ‘The “Theology of Woman’s Place” And the “Paulinist” Tradition’, Semeia (28.101), (1983). 4 ‘It is well known that certain passages in the New Testament deal with the status, role, attire, and/or general demeanor of women in such a manner as to support the principle of male dominance and female subordination, both in the home and in the church (and by implication in society as well). These passages are seven in number: 1 Cor 11:3–16; 1 Cor 14:34–35; Col 3:18–19; Eph 5:22–33; 1 Tim 2:8–15; Titus 2:4–5; and 1 Pet 3:1–7.1.’, ibid., p.106; Walker claims Paul did not write any of these passages. 5 ‘Even more striking, however, is the complete command that wives be “submissive to their (own) husbands,” which occurs with essentially the same wording in Col 3:18; Eph 5:21–22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Pet 3:1,5.9 Other parallels include references to “learning” (1 Cor 14:35; 1 Tim 2:11), “silence” or “silent” (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11,12; 1 Pet 3:4), “not permitting” (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12), “pure” or “holy” (Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:2), “adornment,” “adorned,” or “adorning” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3,5), “clothing” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “gold” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “braided” or “braiding” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “head” (1 Cor 11:3,4,5,7,10; Eph 5:23), and “disgrace” or “disgraceful” (1 Cor 11:4,5,6,14; 1 Cor 14:35).’, ibid., p. 104. 6 ‘This brief survey of 1 Corinthians has shown that there are not only two passages at issue when talking about the role and status of women in this letter (11:2–16; 14:34–35) but five (5:1–5; 7:1–40; 16:19; see also 1:11) or even six (15:5–8), and some references to women in other Pauline letters need to be included as well.’, Crocker (egalitarian), ’Reading 1 Corinthians in the twenty-first century’, p. 156 (2004); see also chapter one, ‘Identifying Key Texts’. 7 The verb ‘submit’ is not in the Greek text in this verse, but is implied and therefore supplied in standard modern translations (it appears in the Greek text in verse 24); Bruce (egalitarian), writes ‘No verb is expressed in v. 22, the imperative “be subject” (a participle in the Greek text) being understood from v. 21.’, ‘The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 383-384 (1984), Kistemaker writes, ‘The verb is undoubtedly to be supplied from the preceding verse’, ‘Exposition of Ephesians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 7, p. 247 (1990), Bratcher & Nida write, ‘In translation the verb must be supplied from the participle of “to submit” in the preceding verse.’, ‘A Handbook on Paul's letter to the Ephesians’, UBS Handbook series, p. 139 (1993), Boles writes ‘The word “submit” is drawn from v. 21’, ‘Galatians & Ephesians’, College Press NIV commentary (1993).

1 Corinthians 14:33, ‘As in all the churches of the saints’: correction of the speaking of women in the congregation13 14 15 16 17 1 Timothy 3:14-15, ‘I am writing these instructions to you in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God’: directing Timothy to understand how all ecclesias should be organized, a summary of the purpose of this entire letter18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Paul describes his corrections of local situations, in universal terms of the Scripturally 'right way' of doing things. He does not say that his corrections are temporary emergency measures applied merely to local circumstances. Paul’s aim is to standardize practices throughout all the ecclesias. His response to local errors is to correct them by ensuring they conform to universal practices.26 27 28 (Jonathan Burke, 2010) ------- 13 ‘33–36 deals with an aspect of the role of wives in the church. Some commentators get round the problem by stating that this section is a later addition and not by Paul. But every manuscript includes this passage. Three points need to be noted in seeking to understand the passage, (i) Wives prayed and prophesied in Christian gatherings (see 11:5). This was a common practice in all the apostolic churches (33b). The context is crucial viz. the evaluation of prophecy (v 35). (ii) The law requires the acknowledgement of the distinctive roles of men and women (34), a reference to Gn. 2:20–24 or 3:16. Paul has already cited the former in 11:8–9. (iii) The wife is to seek the elucidation of points at home, which could well mean that it is her husband who has given the prophecy (35). While there is no absolute certainty, the present writer takes the view that wives, in this public gathering, are not to engage in the public weighing of prophecy which involved the interrogation of its content.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4th rev. ed. 1994). 14 ‘The phrase does seem to fit less awkwardly with verse 34, so that one finds a reference to church custom and then an example of it in the mention of women’s silence.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 305 (1999). 15 ‘If As in all the congregations of the saints (cf. 4:17) goes with this verse, Paul is calling on the Corinthians to conform to accepted Christian practice.’, Morris, ‘1 Corinthians: An introduction and commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 7, p. 192 (1985). 16 ‘However, the expression churches reflects nuances: the first occurrence (“As in all the churches of the saints”) alludes to churches in general and the second (“let the women keep silent in the churches”) to worship services. Conversely, verse 33b is not the only place in his epistles where Paul exhibits a lack of exemplary style. We assume that he is concerned not about elegance but rather about providing the churches with rules to bolster unity and harmony (compare 4:17; 7:17; 11:16)—concerns that he has emphasized throughout the epistle.’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 511 (1993). 17 ‘It seems preferable, then, to link 33b with 33a. In this case, verse 33b will form the conclusion, not only of verses 32–33a, but also of the whole paragraph, and should be translated as a separate sentence. One may say, for example, “This is what happens in all the churches of God’s people.”’, Ellingworth, Hatton, & Ellingworth, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 324 (1995). 18 ‘With these two images, family and temple, Paul expresses the two urgencies of this letter: his concern over proper behavior among believers vis-à-vis the false teachers, and the church as the people entrusted to uphold and proclaim the truth of the gospel.’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary’, p. 92 (rev ed. 1988) 19 ‘Timothy must know how to supervise worship and the election of officers.’, Hendriksen, ‘Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 4, p. 136 (1957). 20 ‘These instructions is literally “these things,” which can be taken in a general sense as referring to the whole letter (as in TEV “as I write this letter”), or in a specific sense as referring to the instructions regarding the appointment of church leaders described in this chapter, which is what RSV seems to suggest. The first interpretation seems to be the more likely one and is recommended by this Handbook.’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus’, USB Handbook Series, p. 79 (1995). 21 Paul’s prior admonitions to Timothy, especially in 3:1–13, thus serve a function analogous to the household codes of many ancient writers: providing a specific framework of wisdom for administrating the family unit and society.’, Keener (egalitarian), ‘The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament’ (1993). 22 ‘ The ἵνα clause then introduces the reason for Paul’s writing: so that Timothy and the church may know what is proper conduct for God’s household—with the implicit understanding that such knowledge will result in that kind of conduct.’, Knight (complementarian), ‘The Pastoral Epistles’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 179 (1992). 23 ‘In emphasizing how important it is that people conduct themselves properly in the household of God, Paul has already pointed out that the church is the house of God, understood as God’s temple and his household.’, Mounce (complementarian), ‘Pastoral Epistles’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 46, p. 221 (2002). 24 ‘Here Paul breaks off his direct instructions to describe the nature of the church, putting his teaching into perspective. It is highly likely that Paul had already given the gist of these instructions to Timothy, but he wrote them down so as to give Timothy support during his absence. The use of the household metaphor to describe the church echoes v 5 and explains why Paul is concerned that an official should govern his family well.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4th rev. ed. 1994). 25 ‘Paul authorizes Timothy to instruct the Ephesian church on ‘how one ought to behave in the household of God’ (1 Tim. 3:15). Included in his instructions are guidelines for men and women in church (ch. 2). Men are to pray without anger or argument (v. 8), and women are to adorn themselves with good works rather than with extravagant dress (vv. 9–10). Moreover, a woman is to ‘learn in silence with full submission’ (v. 11). Then Paul explains more fully what this silence with full submission entails: ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man’ (v. 12).’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001). 26 1 Corinthians 11: 16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God. 27 1 Corinthians 14: 37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 28 1 Corinthians 14: 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. Handout_correction.pdf

How Paul Standardized Practices Throughout the Ecclesias CORRECTING ERROR When correcting errors, answering questions, or providing instructions, Paul consistently appeals to universal practice in order to ensure ecclesias become aligned with the practice which is mandatory for all ecclesias everywhere.1 1 Corinthians 7:1, 17, ‘Now with regard to the issues you wrote about… I give this sort of direction in all the churches.’: answering questions from the ecclesia2 3 4 5 1 Corinthians 11:16, ‘we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God’: correction of the Corinthian lack of head coverings6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ------- 1 Some interpreters understand Paul’s instructions to be intended for their original Ephesian context only, for the correction of abuses specific to that church. The weakness of this view is that Paul grounds his teaching not in the local situation, as he sometimes does (Titus 1:10–13), but in two primal human events: the creation of the man first, and then the woman (1 Tim. 2:13; cf. Gen. 2); and the deceiving of the woman, not the man (1 Tim. 2:14; cf. Gen. 3:1–7). His first rationale, analogous to his reasoning in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, draws upon the divine intention that the woman would be a suitable helper for the man (Gen. 2:18), which implies that she has a supportive role.’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001). 2 ‘Moreover, Paul assures the Corinthians that they are not alone in this endeavor, for all the churches are called and directed in this same manner, even as Paul himself lives this way.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 154 (1999). 3 ‘c. “And I am laying down this rule in all the churches.” The rule for believers is to stay where the Lord has placed them and to live worthily in their calling. Paul repeats himself to bring the point home (vv. 20, 24). He makes this rule on the strength of his apostolic authority and applies it in all the churches (see 4:17; 14:34; 16:1).’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 230 (1993). 4 ‘This is my rule… : the Greek is literally “and this in all the churches I commanded” (TEV “teach”). This same verb is used in 11.34 where it is translated “give directions” (TEV “settle”). It may mean “set in order” but more probably has the meaning “command” or “lay down.” The context shows clearly that churches means “local Christian communities”; NEB (not REB) and Brc have “congregations.” In some languages it may be more natural to translate “This is the rule that I teach in all the other churches as well as yours.”, Ellingworth, Hatton, & Ellingworth, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 158 (rev. ed. 1995). 5 ‘ It may be taken as an encouragement: I am not simply saying this to you at Corinth; I say it widely wherever I preach and teach. Or it may (more probably) be understood as a reminder that this (possible) lack of realism or “eschatological perfectionism” is peculiar to this idiosyncratic interpretation of the gospel. Or (pace Wire and Castelli) to mean that Paul is not being personally authoritarian, but reflecting the “ordered” realism (τάσσω) of the wider church and its varied congregations.’, Thiselton (complementarian), ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 550 (2000). 6 ‘Paul concludes that if any want to contend this apostolic tradition, they need to take note that neither Paul nor the churches of God have any other practice.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4th rev. ed. 1994) 7 ‘In the end, the issues under discussion in this vivid section of the letter may elude resolution, although one should not fail to see that in verse 16 Paul himself recognizes the potential denial of his argument. Thus, he finishes his remarks on a weighty note: Should someone object to Paul’s arguments, teaching, or reasoning; then that person must realize that Paul’s position is a universal norm, for it is the practice … [of] the churches of God, and according to the practices of those churches, what was happening in Corinth was inappropriate.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 227 (1999). 8 ‘But Paul has no intention of arguing the matter with anyone given to wordy battles (contentious, philoneikos, means someone who loves strife). Such people are capable of prolonging an argument indefinitely. In the face of such an attitude Paul points to universal Christian custom; Christians have no other practice. Exactly who he means by we is not clear; it may mean Paul himself, or the apostles generally, or those with him when he wrote the letter. But the nor do the churches of God shows that what he has outlined is the common practice throughout the churches.’, Morris, ‘1 Corinthians: An introduction and commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 7, p. 153 (1985). 9 ‘b. “We do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.” Paul refuses to be challenged on his teachings that are based on the Old Testament Scriptures. He knows that the rest of the apostles support him, and therefore he confidently writes the personal pronoun we. This is not the so-called editorial we, but an inclusive pronoun that embraces other leaders in the churches.’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 383 (1993). 10 ‘If Paul is including a Christian community in the meaning of we, the end of the verse must be translated “the other churches of God.” ItCL has followed this interpretation, “the other communities,” but this is not in the Greek text. REB gives a similar meaning without adding the word “other”: “…or in any of the congregations of God’s people.” Phps has “we and the churches of God generally…,” meaning “most churches.” This last is the most likely solution, since Paul speaks of himself, using the first person singular, in verse 17 of this chapter, and there is no suggestion anywhere else in the letter that Sosthenes played any significant part in its writing. In any case, “we” is exclusive, since Paul does not include the people in Corinth. A good sample translation is: “neither I nor the churches of God generally….”’, Ellington, Hatton, & Ellington, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 252 (1995). 11 ‘Paul reserves one final argument for those unpersuaded by his former points. One philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom—”that’s just not the way it’s done.”’, Keener (egalitarian), ‘The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament’ (1993). 12 ‘It seems self-evident that the custom (συνήθειaν) to which Paul alludes concerns gender distinctions in public worship, which, as Murphy-O’Connor urged, are addressed both to men and to women equally. The custom is the acceptance of an equality of status in accordance with which woman may lead in public prayer or preaching (see below on prophecy) side by side with a recognition that gender differences must not be blurred but appreciated, valued, and expressed in appropriate ways in response to God’s unrevoked decree.’, Thiselton (complementarian), ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 847 (2000).

Principles of interpretation Brother Byrnes: ‘Arguments from silence are invalid except when there are strong reasons to expectthat ordinarily the silence would be broken.’ In the case of the New Testament, the authors make an argument from silence regarding the appointment of elders and overseers. They argue that since there is no New Testament mention of elders and overseers in Corinth or Rome, this is evidence that not all ecclesias were run the same way, and that not every ecclesia had elders and overseers (emphasis added): ‘It is not clear what kind of leadership existed when ecclesias were first started. There is no New Testament mention of elders or overseers in Corinth or Rome.’ ‘All One – NT’, page 85 Claiming that no New Testament mention of elders or overseers in Corinth or Rome’ is evidence that not all ecclesias were run in the same way constitutes an argument from silence. The fact is that there is abundant evidence for only one ecclesial model in the New Testament, and that is the model which involves male elders and overseers. The argument that this is how the apostolic ecclesias were typically organised has considerable support in the form of negative and positive evidence. There is negative evidence since there is no evidence to the contrary, and there is positive evidence that this was standard practice: Acts 11: 30 “They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders [of ‘the brothers living in Judea’] by Barnabas and Saul.” Acts 14: 23 “When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting, they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed.” Acts 15: 4 “When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them.” 6 “Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter.” 23 “They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings!” Acts 20: 17 From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling the elders of the church to come to him. 1 Timothy 3: 1 “This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work. “ 1 Timothy 5: 17 Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. Titus 1: 7 For the overseer must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain. James 5: 14 Is anyone among you ill? He should summon the elders of the church, and they should pray for him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 1 Peter 5: 1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you: 2 John 1: 1 From the elder, to an elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth (and not I alone, but also all those who know the truth), There is no support for the claim that the ecclesias were organised in any other way, or that women were appointed to the positions of elder or overseer. The Sister\'s Role - booklet1.pdf

Principles of interpretation Brother Byrnes: ‘To establish a doctrine we must argue from the rule to the exception and not from the exception to the rule. The rule establishes the doctrine and the exception proves the rule e.g. Christ’s resurrection to immortality is the exception which proves the rule that, apart from Divine intervention at the return of Christ on behalf of the faithful, human beings die and remain that way.’ The authors recognise many such cases but then draw conclusions which argue against the principle. ‘Leadership by women was the exception rather than the rule’, page 135 ‘Leadership by women is less common than leadership by men’, page 137 ‘In general, the judges were men’, page 139 ‘Male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time’, page 145) ‘All One – OT’ (bold emphasis added) ‘We suggest reasons why sisters were not explicitly included in aspects of leadership, but we also show ways in which there is good reason to think that some leadership was practised by women: e.g. Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:19), Nympha (Colossians 4:15)’ (page 20) (page 55) ‘We do not claim that women were appointed to all the same positions of leadership and teaching as the men – but there is enough evidence that they did teach and did appear to exercise some authority’ (page 27) ‘That does not mean that every brother does every job, nor every sister every job’ (page 47) ‘All One – NT’ (bold emphasis added)

It is very clear from this that the authors of “All One” are well aware that their case is not ‘interspersed throughout the whole Bible’. Once again it is noteworthy that this is acknowledged by the pro-feminist commentator Kenneth Sparks: ‘Thoughtful egalitarians will admit what every complementarian is quick to point out: that the Bible contains numerous texts that are patriarchal in orientation.’(Page 53) ‘The biblical evidence in support of the traditional viewpoint spans the canon from the creation to the General Epistles, and the resulting perspective is remarkably consistent.’ ‘Moreover, we have seen already that many biblical texts either assert or imply male headship in the home and church, even in the New Testament.’ ‘So, while Belleville is technically correct to say that "this is the lone New Testament reference to Adam’s seniority", good theology requires that this text be read in light of the many other biblical texts that highlight male authority in the home and church.’ ‘A considerable mass of convincing exegetical, theological, and historical evidence supports this traditional reading, as is admitted even by egalitarians like William Webb. Webb can admit this because, unlike Belleville, he feels no compulsion to make 1 Timothy say something that it clearly does not say.’ 5 Principles of interpretation Brother Byrnes: ‘We must avoid taking the specific teaching of a single verse or section of Scripture and making a generalisation from it e.g. in 1 Cor 15:42, 52 Paul says the dead shall be raised incorruptible which suggests that we emerge from the grave immortal. However, we have to take into account other Scriptures that qualify this from the immediate context of the chapter and the wider context of the whole Bible.’ ‘A consistent thread of teaching cannot be overruled by a single passage that appears to be contrary to it. For example, we do not allow the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, (which on the face of it suggests that we are conscious and immortal after death), to overthrow the entire Bible’s teaching to the contrary. The parable is not a didactic statement on the death-state, rather it is a vehicle for teaching the Pharisees a lesson based on their own erroneous beliefs about life after death.’ Readers of “All One” will note that they quote, cite, and allude to one single verse more than any other, Galatians 3:28. In fact it is a cornerstone of their entire case, such that they included a quote from it in the title of each of their papers (‘All One – OT’ and ‘All One – NT’): ‘If we understand what he says in accordance with the context, Paul approves of equal service by sisters and by brothers. Life and service (page 54) within the ecclesia, according to Paul, are not divided up by reference to whether male or female, nor whether slave or free, nor whether Jew or Gentile. Society might still impose restrictions, and it did. But as far as life and service in the ecclesia was concerned, in Christ you are all one.’‘All One – NT’, page 43 As may be seen above, this is a text that says nothing about the role of women in the ecclesia. To refer to this even as a non-explicit statement concerning the role of women in the ecclesia is unreasonable. Yet the authors claim that the verse is saying that ‘Life and service within the ecclesia, according to Paul, are not divided up by reference to whether male or female, nor whether slave or free, nor whether Jew or Gentile’ (something Paul never says), and generalise from this that there are no gender distinctions to be made between roles in the ecclesia. _______ 5 Kenton L Sparks, ‘God’s Word In Human Words’ (Baker Academic:2008), pages 339, 344, 349

The authors commonly draw inferred arguments from passages which do not speak directly to the subject, and then use these to interpret passages which do speak directly and explicitly. The following is a list of examples: ‘The manner of Jesus’ involvement with these followers shows a change in the understanding of the part women could play’ (‘All One – NT’, page 21) ‘Jesus also broke with convention in allowing women to touch him in a way which alarmed his more orthodox critics’ (‘All One – NT’, page 21) ‘In a very male-orientated society he is shown as revolutionary in his approach to women, as he was in his attitudes on many other matters’ (‘All One – NT’, page 24) ‘Baptism was the same mode of commitment for male and female believers, underlining the essential unity of the new movement in Jesus’ (‘All One – NT’, page 24) ‘If we understand what he says in accordance with the context, Paul approves of equal service by sisters and by brothers. Life and service within the ecclesia, according to Paul, are not divided up by reference to whether male or female, nor whether slave or free, nor whether Jew or Gentile. Society might still impose restrictions, and it did. But as far as life and service in the ecclesia was concerned, in Christ you are all one’ (‘All One – NT’, page 43) None of the passages referred to contain explicit teaching on the role of women in the ecclesia, as far as leadership and teaching is concerned. These are all non-explicit texts, yet they are represented as the control texts by which other texts are to be interpreted. It is noteworthy that pro-feminist Biblical professor Kenneth Sparks (see also appendix C) makes the same point: ‘The context of these biblical texts reveals that, in the game of proof-text poker, the traditionalists have a far stronger hand than the (page 52) egalitarians. Whereas the traditionalist verses speak very directly and specifically to the issue at hand ("wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord"), the egalitarian texts seem strained to the breaking point.’4 Principles of interpretation Brother Foreman: ‘Sixth. No doctrine should be predicated upon mere inference, neither upon one isolated text of Scripture. Any true doctrine will be found interspersed throughout the whole Bible.’ Brother Byrnes: ‘A doctrine must be established on the basis of a clear, consistent thread of teaching throughout the Old and New Testaments e.g. the oneness of God is taught clearly in the O.T. and confirmed unmistakably in the N.T. by Christ and the apostles.’ As seen in the previous point, the authors’ arguments are based on inference. From the positive treatment of women by Christ, they infer that he would have had no objection to the appointment of women to the same leadership and speaking roles as men, despite the fact that he never did and nor did the apostles.The following is from ‘All One – OT’ (bold emphasis added): ‘Leadership by women was the exception rather than the rule’, page 135 ‘Leadership by women is less common than leadership by men’, page 137 ‘In general, the judges were men’, page 139 ‘Male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time’, page 145) _______ 4 Kenton L Sparks, ‘God’s Word In Human Words’ (Baker Academic:2008), page 343

The sheer extent of changes and words added to the text indicates that the literal meaning has been left far behind. This interpretation (along with other alternatives), is offered as a suggested paraphrase resting on a number of inferences, assumptions, and suggestions (pages 73-74, 76-79, emphasis added): ‘Possibilities of translation include’ ‘There are at least four possibilities’ ‘One suggestion is’ ‘It may be that’ ‘This may be’ ‘suggests’ ‘There are several possibilities’ ‘It may well be’ ‘Alternatively it could mean’ ‘Three ways of understanding his wording have been suggested’ ‘There are at least three possible interpretations’ ‘There is a third possibility’ (Page 50) Firm conclusions cannot be based on unproved inferences, assumptions, and suggestions. The literal reading of the passage does not render it ‘absurd’ (to use brother Foreman’s term), and the only reason why the authors number it among their ‘problem’ verses is that the literal reading is a problem for their case concerning the role of sisters in the ecclesia. Principles of interpretation Brother Byrnes: ‘8) Doctrine must be generated from the Scriptures themselves and not from a preconceived theory that we then fit verses to in an attempt to bolster the theory.’ It is notable that in the case of both verses already considered that almost every conceivable reading is suggested as plausible except the natural literal reading. Why is this? The authors have approached this passage with the idea that the treatment of women by Christ and Paul indicates that the natural reading of this passage must be wrong: ‘We conclude, therefore, that the overall evidence of Paul’s letters from approximately 48 to the early 60s AD shows no male/female distinction in duties and activities carried out by members of the ecclesias’‘There are two sets of verses, however, which seem to reverse the whole of this analysis: 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. How are these verses to be understood in a way which is compatible with the rest of Paul’s teaching and practice?’‘All One – NT’, page 51 The last sentence is particularly important, since it demonstrates that the authors approached these two verses with a view to making them fit their conclusions. Principles of interpretation Brother Foreman: ‘Fifth. The truth in relation to any doctrine must be established by those passages which speak of it in positive and unequivocal language, and those texts belonging to the same subject but which only admit of inferential testimony, no inference should be drawn from them at variance with the truths already established by positive texts.’ Brother Byrnes: ‘Passages on which doctrine is based should not be incidental i.e. passages that are non-essential to the main teaching of a book or that do not constitute a teaching statement. For example, Romans, the one book of the N.T. that systematically (page 51) explains how sin and death entered the world, what sin is and how the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ overcome sin and death, contains only one reference to Satan at the end of 16 chapters of detailed exposition. This one incidental reference cannot be used to alter the apostle’s argument in the rest of the book by suggesting that a fallen-angel Satan had a role to play in how sin entered the world, what causes sin etc.’ ‘We must avoid basing doctrine on passages that only infer e.g. Thomas’ statement ‘ My Lord and my God’ to a believer in the Trinity, teaches that Jesus is part of a triune Godhead but this view of the statement is based on inference. It is not a statement on the nature of the Godhead but an outburst from a now undoubting Thomas.’

(Page 48) Appendix B: Comparison of “All One” with the “Principles of Interpretation” Another method to test the logic of the arguments in “All One” is to compare it with two Christadelphian ‘principles of interpretation’ of which the authors of “All One” speak favourably.The first of these ‘principles of interpretation’ was written by brother James Foreman, and published in 1859 by brother Thomas in the Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (pages 179-180). The second was compiled by Brother Colin Byrnes of Sydney Australia. Both lists are presented in complete form in Appendix A. In the following section a number of the “All One” arguments are compared with points in Brother Foreman and brother Byrne’s lists. Principles of interpretation Brother Foreman: ‘Second. Give every passage a literal construction, unless its own connection and phraseology render such a course absurd, by bringing it into collision with truths elsewhere established by positive language.’ Two texts fundamental to the topic under discussion are interpreted in “All One” in a highly non-literal manner. Firstly: 1 Corinthians 14: 34 “the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.” This is interpreted as saying: ‘Thirdly he enjoins silence (sigan, the same verb) on “the women” – not on those who are speaking acceptably as outlined above (one at a time) but on the women whose speaking is adding to the confused uproar which Paul is trying to stop.’‘All One – NT’, pages 53-54 It is noteworthy that the qualifications included in “All One” do not actually appear in the verse itself. Justification for these qualifications rests on a number of assumptions, inferences, and ‘clues’ which the authors apply to the text (page 54, emphasis added): (Page 49) ‘There are three clues to the fact that it is disorderly speaking to which Paul refers’ ‘suggests the women were asking questions’ ‘Perhaps they were taking part in weighing up what the prophets said (verse 29) but in a disruptive and arrogant manner’ When qualifications are added to a text which does not contain them, and when such qualifications are based on inference and supposition, the natural literal reading is being abandoned on inadequate grounds. There is no need to abandon the literal reading in this case. Paul does not say that the silence he describes applies only to ‘those who are not speaking acceptably’. This is certainly not ‘what the Law says’, and it is noteworthy that “All One” omits any explanation of Paul’s appeal to the Law here. The second passage is 1 Timothy 2:12: “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.” This is interpreted as saying: ‘Wives who need to be instructed in the Christian faith should learn quietly and submissively. I do not allow a wife, who herself needs to be taught, to teach or to tell her husband what to do. She must keep quiet and learn.’‘All One – NT’, page 80

The second list was compiled by Brother Colin Byrnes of Sydney Australia. ‘THE CHRISTADELPHIAN METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING DOCTRINE IN SCRIPTURE: When establishing a doctrine all relevant Scriptures must be examined so that a complete understanding of the doctrine can be obtained. We must avoid taking the specific teaching of a single verse or section of Scripture and making a generalisation from it e.g. in 1 Cor 15:42, 52 Paul says the dead shall be raised incorruptible which suggests that we emerge from the grave immortal. However, we have to take into account other Scriptures that qualify this from the immediate context of the chapter and the wider context of the whole Bible. A doctrine must be established on the basis of a clear, consistent thread of teaching throughout the Old and New Testaments e.g. the oneness of God is taught clearly in the O.T. and confirmed unmistakably in the N.T. by Christ and the apostles. For example, Deut 6:4, 5 is quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 12:29-30 establishing the oneness of God. A consistent thread of teaching cannot be overruled by a single passage that appears to be contrary to it. For example, we do not allow the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, (which on the face of it suggests that we are conscious and immortal after death), to overthrow the entire Bible’s teaching to the contrary. The parable is not a didactic statement (page 45) on the death-state; rather it is a vehicle for teaching the Pharisees a lesson based on their own erroneous beliefs about life after death. To establish a doctrine we must move from clear, teaching passages to difficult passages and not the reverse. i) Christadelphian doctrine is based on teaching passages such as ‘Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD’. People who believe in the Trinity for example, cannot produce passages such as ‘Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is three persons in one’ or ‘to us there is but one God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost’, in support of their position. ii) We must avoid basing doctrine on passages that only infer e.g. Thomas’ statement ‘ My Lord and my God’ to a believer in the Trinity, teaches that Jesus is part of a triune Godhead but this view of the statement is based on inference. It is not a statement on the nature of the Godhead but an outburst from a now undoubting Thomas. iii) Doctrine cannot be based on passages that are ambiguous e.g. the Lord’s words to the thief on the cross ‘ I say unto thee, Today thou shalt be with me in paradise ‘ can be read in two different ways depending on whether we choose to place the comma before or after ‘Today’. The correct reading must be governed by the Bible’s overall teaching on this subject. iv) Passages on which doctrine is based should not be incidental i.e. passages that are non essential to the main teaching of a book or that do not constitute a teaching statement. For example, Romans, the one book of the N.T. that systematically explains how sin and death entered the world, what sin is and how the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ overcome sin and death, contains only one reference to Satan at the end of 16 chapters of detailed exposition. This one incidental reference cannot be used to alter the apostle’s argument in the rest of the book by suggesting that a fallen-angel Satan had a role to play in how sin entered the world, what causes sin etc. v) The folly of basing doctrine on highly figurative language can be seen, for example, in the use made of Isa 14 by those who see in ‘Lucifer’, a reference to a fallen angel devil. We must also avoid taking literally what is figurative e.g. ‘ this (bread) is my body ‘, ‘ this (wine) is my blood ‘, ‘ and that rock was Christ’ (Matt 26:26, 27), ( 1 Cor 10:4). (page 46) The first two verses have been used to establish the doctrine of the transubstantiation of Christ, and the last one as a proof of the pre-existence of Christ. Each is a metaphor meaning the bread, wine or rock represent Christ’s body, his blood and his ability to give the water of life, respectively. To establish a doctrine we must argue from the rule to the exception and not from the exception to the rule. The rule establishes the doctrine and the exception proves the rule e.g. Christ’s resurrection to immortality is the exception which proves the rule that, apart from Divine intervention at the return of Christ on behalf of the faithful, human beings die and remain that way. We must acknowledge that the Scripture is based on the inspired teachings of Moses, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ himself e.g. the apostles’ teachings should never be taken as their personal opinions or the mere adoption of rabbinical arguments. The meanings of Hebrew and Greek words must be determined: i) by their usage in the Scriptures e.g. using Englishman’s or Young’s concordances. ii) by the unanimous definitions of recognised lexicographers of the Old and New Testaments. We need to be wary of new word meanings not listed by the lexicographers that are used to support new doctrines and to undermine long-held Christadelphian teachings. iii) in the N.T., Greek words should be determined by a) their usage there rather than in classical Greek, b.) their usage in the first century rather than several centuries before or after and c) their usage, as a guide only, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the O.T. which was often used by the apostles. Even when a word has several valid meanings listed, we must be careful to select the most likely meaning in the context rather than choose a secondary or tertiary meaning that suits our preconceptions. Doctrine must be generated from the Scriptures themselves and not from a preconceived theory that we then fit verses to in an attempt to bolster the theory. The concept of a supernatural fallen-angel devil is a church doctrine arrived at by developing the idea first, then finding verses to support it. There is not one passage that says the devil or Satan is a fallen angel. This is just one of many arguments that can be levelled at this doctrine. Arguments from silence are invalid except when there are strong reasons to expect that ordinarily the silence would be broken. As an example, if (page 47) the devil was a real source of temptation to mankind we would expect James, when explaining how temptation and sin arise in Jas 1:12-15, to have good cause to warn us about the devil but he fails to do so. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that there is no fallen-angel tempter, particularly in view of the lack of evidence elsewhere in the Bible to support such an idea. It is necessary to understand and take into account the cultural background to any Bible passage before attempting to apply the passage to modern circumstances. However, a particular cultural requirement must not be allowed to overthrow any principle in the passage that applies to us e.g. the fact that the Apostle Peter calls for submission to the king, does not mean that American believers can disregard their president. The fact that the Apostle Paul asks the ‘strong’ to be tolerant of newly converted Jews who would not eat unclean meat, does not mean that we do not have to be tolerant of new converts who are struggling to divest themselves of wrong religious practices just because the practices are other than not eating unclean meats. 1 Pet 2:13; Rom 14:1-4. The final test of a true doctrine is whether that doctrine dovetails with all other doctrines in the Scripture e.g. the churches teach that our immortal soul goes to heaven or hell at death but this makes nonsense of the resurrection of the body, rewards and punishments being experienced through the body at judgment and the Kingdom of God on earth. The meaning of a section of Scripture must be determined from its immediate and wider contexts. One brother in a study given in 1987 presented the following correct steps for successful interpretation of a Bible passage: i) Interpret Scripture language in its normal linguistic sense having regard to grammatical construction, to the words used, to the meanings of those words based on semantics and Bible usage and to figurative language. ii) Adhere to the Bible’s inspired logic, ensuring that each interpretive step is necessary, consecutive and free from assumptions. iii) Check the validity of your interpretations by their agreement or disagreement with the immediate context. iv) Check the validity of your interpretations by their agreement or disagreement with the relevant wider context of the whole Bible. v) Apply each rule rigorously so as to reinforce, not cancel, the effect of the other rules.’

(Page 43) Appendix A: Principles of Interpretation The following two lists have been written by Christadelphians to help the correct interpretation of Scripture. In appendix B these principles are used to assess the “All One” papers. The first of these was written by Brother James Foreman, and published in 1859 by Brother Thomas in the Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (pages 179-180). (Page 44) ‘RULES OF INTERPRETATION AND DIRECTIONS FOR INVESTIGATING THE SCRIPTURES. First. Let the Bible define and explain its own terms, figures and symbols. Second. Give every passage a literal construction, unless its own connection and phraseology render such a course absurd, by bringing it into collision with truths elsewhere established by positive language. Third. The proper connection of any given passage is not always that with which it stands immediately connected, but those bearing on the same subject found recorded anywhere in the Scriptures. Select all these texts from where they stand, put them together and you will have all the truth revealed on that subject. Fourth. All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject. Fifth. The truth in relation to any doctrine must be established by those passages which speak of it in positive and unequivocal language and those texts belonging to the same subject but which only admit of inferential testimony, no inference should be drawn from them at variance with the truths already established by positive texts. Sixth. No doctrine should be predicated upon mere inference, neither upon one isolated text of Scripture. Any true doctrine will be found interspersed throughout the whole Bible. RULES FOR STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES First. In any doctrine taught by types or shadows, the anti-type must always correspond with the type, and the shadow with the substance. Second. In studying the Scriptures, consider that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old. Third. Never be afraid of results to which you may be driven by your investigations, as this will inevitably bias your mind and disqualify you to arrive at ultimate truth. Fourth. Investigate everything you believe: if it is the truth, it cannot be injured thereby; if error, the sooner it is corrected the better. Fifth. Pursue this course with as much independence as if you were the only one concerned. Sixth. Rely on no authority less than divine in so momentous an undertaking. PROVE ALL THINGS: HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD.’

(Page 40) False Doctrine (The trinity) – Identical Arguments False Doctrine – Identical Arguments The doctrine of the trinity _There are no explicit general prohibitions against the case, only qualified prohibitions of very limited application There are no explicit passages saying that God is not a trinity, and those which say God is one do not mean that God is only one person When Jesus says that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3), he doesn’t exclude himself or the Holy Spirit from being the only true God as well When Paul says that there is one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6), he doesn’t mean that God is only the Father When Paul says that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5), he doesn’t mean that Jesus is only a man When the New Testament speaks of Jesus being tired, hurting, dying, and being limited in his knowledge, it’s only talking about Jesus’ mortal body, not Jesus himself The key words under discussion are of uncertain meaning and can only be used for the case (not against it) The meaning of the Hebrew words ‘elohim’ and ‘echad’ are disputed, but they actually both speak of a compound unity or plurality in one, specifically a plurality of persons – because of the confusion non-Trinitarians cannot be certain that these words support their case, but despite the confusion Trinitarians can be certain that these words support their doctrine. Scholars still contest the precise meaning of the Greek words MONOGENES and PROTOTOKOS, so even though they can be understood of Jesus in a sense which contradicts the Trinity, they should in fact be understood in a sense which agrees with the trinity – because of the confusion non-Trinitarians cannot be certain that these words support their case, but despite the confusion Trinitarians can be certain that these words support their case. (Page 41) The teaching of the Old Testament is no longer relevant because the New Testament provides new revelation Whilst it’s true that the Jews of the Old Testament era only knew God as one person, this does not mean that He is one person, only that this was all that He had revealed to them at the time – this has now been superseded by the new revelation that God is a trinity of persons Scriptural exceptions can be found to the alleged prohibition, proving that there is no prohibition Although God is overwhelmingly referred to using singular pronouns (which would indicate He is one person), there are four passages in the Old Testament in which He seems to be referred to using plural pronouns, proving that God is in fact more than one person (Page 42) Conclusion A flawed method of interpretation will always lead to false conclusions. The traditional case for the trinity, the case for the participation in the ecclesia of openly homosexuals, and the case for an expanded role of sisters in the ecclesia all use the same flawed method, and as a result the conclusions are false in each case. Scripture, the Word of God, must be used with sound reasoning that leads to the conclusion that God intends. We must be careful not to take our personal opinion and make the Divinely inspired record support it.

(Page 38) Comparative Revisionism – Identical Arguments Comparative Revisionism – Identical Arguments Role of sisters – page numbers are from All One -NT Homosexuality _According to Galatians 3:28, participation in the ecclesia is not circumscribed by distinctions of gender ‘If we understand what he says in accordance with the context, Paul approves of equal service by sisters and by brothers. Life and service within the ecclesia, according to Paul, are not divided up by reference to whether male or female, nor whether slave or free, nor whether Jew or Gentile. Society might still impose restrictions, and it did. But as far as life and service in the ecclesia was concerned, in Christ you are all one’ page 43 ‘Now imagine a Christadelphian ecclesia that would not fellowship someone because he was in a relationship with someone of the "wrong" gender. That should be an equally appalling thought. From Galatians we know that gender is not important to those in Christ. No Christadelphian ecclesia should react to a relationship because of the gender or genders involved’ There are no explicit general prohibitions against the case, only qualified prohibitions of very limited application ‘We suggest in this booklet that similarly we should all decide by context that it should only be taken as a ban on disorderly speaking’ page 60 ‘It is clear that Paul is condemning disorderly speaking earlier in the chapter, not properly organised praying or exhortation.’ page 60 ‘Condemnation not of homosexual relationships, but only of specific abusive relationships or those associated with idolatry’ ‘but there is no evidence that he was referring to same-sex relationships of any kind, and plenty of evidence that he meant something else’ (Page 39) The key words under discussion are of uncertain meaning and can only be used for the case (not against it) ‘As with diakonos it is difficult to be sure of the meaning’ page 31 ‘their original meaning and application are uncertain’ page 80 ‘uncertainties of context, translation and interpretation’ page 80 ‘both translation and meaning are open to considerable debate’ page 80 ‘their original meaning and application are uncertain’ page 80 ‘It is clear that Paul is condemning disorderly speaking earlier in the chapter, not properly organised praying or exhortation’ page 60 ‘The correct translation of these words is highly debated, and there is no consensus among Bible translators’ ‘When translators cannot agree on the general meaning of a Greek word, it is a sign of their uncertainty’ ‘It is very difficult to say exactly what Paul meant when he wrote malakoi but there is no evidence that he was referring to same-sex relationships of any kind, and plenty of evidence that he meant something else’ ‘As with malakos, we cannot say with certainty what Paul meant when he wrote arsenokoites, but it is clear that it does not refer to same-sexrelationships The teaching of the Law of Moses on this under the Law ‘The ecclesia is a new creation (Galatians 6:15), the old order under the Law applies no more, and this is one of the great truths for which Paul stood’ page 43 ‘Paul elsewhere cites the Law by way of illustration. As far as we can see, he never says that Christians have to keep the Law, and never quotes the Law as a restrictive command for believers in Christ’. page 57 ‘The prohibitions against male-male sex come from the same part of the law that prohibits sex with a menstruating woman (Leviticus 18:19) and paying a hired man monthly rather than daily (Leviticus 19:13). If, contrary to Galatians 2:23-25, we are still bound by the "moral" aspects of the law, then these regulations, clearly moral rather than ritual, should still be binding. No Christadelphian feels that way. No Christadelphian believes that we are still under the law of Moses ’

(Page 36) A Study in Comparative Revisionism Agitation for change in the role of sisters in the ecclesia is not the only change project currently appealing for support within the Christadelphian community. A useful point of comparison is a similar project which (though far more recent in its development), uses the same method of interpretation. That project is for acceptance of homosexuality within the ecclesia. The following comparison is not made to associate those who support change in the participation of sisters in the ecclesia with homosexuality, nor to argue that the case for the participation of sisters will ‘open the door’ to the acceptance of active homosexuals within the ecclesia. It is made simply because the two share an identical method of interpretation, and in many cases even identical arguments. Consideration of them within the context of this booklet helps clarify the weakness in the underlying argument about the extended participation of sisters. For example, a core argument of both cases is the ‘all one’ argument from Galatians 3:26-28. (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” v28) The case for the extended participation of sisters is made thus: ‘If we understand what he says in accordance with the context, Paul approves of equal service by sisters and by brothers. Life and service within the ecclesia, according to Paul, are not divided up by reference to whether male or female, nor whether slave or free, nor whether Jew or Gentile. Society might still impose restrictions, and it did. But as far as life and service in the ecclesia was concerned, in Christ you are all one’ ‘All One – NT’, page 43 The so called ‘Gay Christadelphian’ case is made thus: ‘Now imagine a Christadelphian ecclesia that would not fellowship someone because he was in a relationship with someone of the "wrong" gender. That should be an equally appalling thought. From Galatians we know that gender is not important to those in Christ. No Christadelphian ecclesia should react to a relationship because of the gender or genders involved’ Source: Gay Christadelphian network website http://www.inherit-t...ble/allone.html (Page 37) The two arguments are identical in form. Both take Gal 3:26-29 which makes no explicit comment on the issue under contention, and arguing as if it is a control text. In both cases it is assumed that this is a legitimate method of reasoning. That both use the same argument does not necessarily mean that that the two arguments for change are both wrong or both right. Each argument must be assessed on its own merit. But in this particular case the use of the passage as a control text is demonstrably invalid. Such reasoning can be used to support any particular case regardless of the issues involved. In the following tables it is demonstrated that both cases use the same arguments and logic, and that these are also used by those who support the doctrine of the Trinity. In the first table quotes in the column on the left are taken from ‘All One – NT’, ‘All One – OT’, and quotes in the column on the right are taken from the Gay Christadelphian Network website (http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org). The tables are intended to be representative rather than comprehensive.

4. The very few instances of women leading in various capacities are emphasised heavily, with the argument made that this proves God doesn’t disapprove of women leading the congregation (‘There is no suggestion in the Old Testament that leadership by women is in itself wrong or unacceptable’, page 135), though it is noted ‘Leadership by women was the exception rather than the rule’ (page 135). It is then argued from this that sisters must have exactly the same capacity to speak and teach as brothers This commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence (failing to address the other Old and New Testament data), the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion (that God permitted certain women to lead the congregation in the Old Testament is not evidence that sisters in Christ have the exactly the same capacity to speak and (page 35) teach as brothers), and the fallacy of special pleading (the fact that ‘Leadership by women was the exception rather than the rule’ is an acknowledgment of the fact that men were normatively appointed by God as spiritual leaders and teachers of the congregation). 5. It is argued that ‘Male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time’ (page 135) As demonstrated previously, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. Furthermore, it is argued that the new covenant in Christ overturns all the societal norms, and establishes men and women on the footing which God always intended (‘According to the New Testament none of this applies’, ‘according to New Testament teaching, we can all, male and female, do what the priests did in the Old Testament’, page 136). But if the position of men and women in Christ represents what God always intended, then the significance of men being appointed to the eldership and spiritual leadership positions in the ecclesia (PRESBUTEROS and EPISKOPOS), and the restrictions on women teaching and speaking (however they may be interpreted, the fact remains that they are restrictions and there are no such statements regarding men), cannot be avoided. The inexorable conclusion is that it is the will of God that men be appointed as PRESBUTEROI and EPISKOPOI (not women), and that women be subject to certain restrictions regarding speaking and teaching which are not applied to men. It is clear that we cannot ‘all, male and female’ do everything the priests did in the Old Testament, which is perhaps why the statement on page 136 carefully identifies what ‘all, male and female’ can do as ‘enter the sanctuary, and offer sacrifices to God’. That is certainly true. In Christ, we can ‘all, male and female’, enter the sanctuary, and offer sacrifices to God. But we cannot all perform identical roles. Some positions are reserved for men, some for women. There is no evidence that women can hold the positions to which both Christ and the apostles exclusively appointed men, and Paul makes it clear that there are restrictions on women teaching and speaking which are not applied to men. There is no evidence that the New Testament restrictions on women speaking, Christ’s appointment of men rather than women as his personal disciples, or the apostolic appointment of men to the eldership and spiritual leadership positions in the ecclesia (PRESBUTEROS and EPISKOPOS), were ‘the outcome of society’, and ‘approved by God for that time’ (page 135). They are not presented as any such thing (far to the contrary, they are presented as the divine will), and since both Christ and the apostles wilfully overturned the societal norms of their day, there is much evidence contradicting such a theory. This argument commits the fallacy of the false cause.

This is a remarkable acknowledgement of the ‘traditionalist’ case from a Biblical scholar who believes that ‘the ordination of women to the ministry’ is ‘entirely suitable as Christian practice’. 2. It is argued that ‘Domestic circumstances would frequently have made it difficult for women to be leaders, and in a male-orientated society this would probably be sufficient reason as to why there are only a few women leaders’ (page 34) (Page 33) No evidence is supplied for this assertion and it is not explained exactly which ‘Domestic circumstances would frequently have made it difficult for women to be leaders’. Both Abigail and the wife of Lemuel are rightly held up as paragons of domestic virtue who were certainly as busy as any other Old Testament wife (and most likely more), and yet it is recognised in ‘All One - OT’ that both of them held responsible positions which enabled them to take a lead when necessary. Certainly domestic circumstances did not prevent Miriam, Deborah or Huldah from being leaders. In fact these exceptions to the rule completely undermine the claim that in a male-orientated society this would probably be sufficient reason as to why there are only a few women leaders’. On the contrary, there is no evidence that in Israel’s male-oriented society there was any opposition to the leadership of these women, none of whom were opposed in any way. Of all the divinely appointed women leaders in the Old Testament (three), there is no record of anyone opposing them, certainly not on the grounds that they were women. There was no social or domestic impediment to women being appointed as leaders by God. The fact remains that He gave this role normatively to the men, and only exceptionally to the women. 3. The argument is made that the appointment of males to the priesthood was no indication that their gender was significant in the appointment. Firstly, it is noted on page 135 that the selected gender of Biblical leaders was the product of society (‘male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time’), which is contra indicatory to the suggestion that their gender was irrelevant to their appointment. Secondly, no actual evidence is provided to support the claim that the gender of the priests was irrelevant to their appointment (fallacy of the false cause). Thirdly, it is argued that since we are ‘all one’ in Christ, and not under the Law, the restriction of such leadership and teaching appointments to men no longer applies. The question is asked on page 36, ‘Why then should it be considered that only one of the qualifications for priesthood (being male) remains applicable?’ The fallacy of the false dichotomy is being appealed to here (‘either we are under the Law and the restrictions of the Law apply to us to day, or we aren’t under the Law and the restrictions don’t apply’). The fact is that the evidence of the New Testament is that the restriction of such leadership and teaching appointments to men certainly does still apply, and the incontrovertible evidence for this is found in Christ’s appointment of his disciples, the apostles’ appointment of brothers to the position of PRESBUTEROI and EPISKOPOI, and the statements restricting the speech of (page 34) women in the congregation (however they may be interpreted, the fact remains that they are restrictions, and there are no such statements regarding men). Those who keep the Sabbath ask ‘Why do you keep only nine of the Ten Commandments, when all of them were written in stone as eternal statutes?’ The Biblical reply to this is that of all the ten commandments, only nine are reiterated in the New Testament as binding on all Christians whereas the keeping of the Sabbath is not, but that despite the fact that the literal letter of the law is no longer in force the principles of the Sabbath remain binding. In the same way we find that although the priesthood of the Law no longer applies to the Christian, the principles it represented certainly do, and so does the appointment of men to the positions of eldership and spiritual leadership in the ecclesia. Paul appeals directly to this principle in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (‘the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says’). There is no need to suggest other causes for the submission and silence of women in the ecclesia, when Paul states explicitly that it is based on a principle in the Law. If this principle was no longer in force, Paul would not be able to appeal to it. It is clear that ‘maleness’ is being invoked by Paul as part of his argument, and that this ‘maleness’ relates to a moral principle in the Law which is still in force on those in Christ. The fallacy of suppressed evidence has been invoked by the authors, since they acknowledge elsewhere that Paul is indeed appealing explicitly to the Law of Moses in support of his argument (‘All One – NT’, page 54), and they acknowledge also that ‘Paul elsewhere cites the Law by way of illustration’ without teaching that the Law of Moses is binding on Christians (‘he never says that Christians have to keep the Law, and never quotes the Law as a restrictive command for believers in Christ’, ‘All One – NT’, page 57). Note however that on pages 55-57 they also list with a number of other alternatives an interpretation which denies Paul is referring to the Law of Moses at all.

(Page 31) Other errors in reasoning - ‘All One – OT’ This 130 page paper contains ancient history (20 pages), Christadelphian history (22 pages), and discussion of how to implement the change in participation by sisters in our community, together with testimonies of those in favour (about 30 pages). The following paragraphs comment upon what Old Testament evidence is provided. A few arguments regarding Genesis 1-3 are challenged to support the authors’ case. A couple of these are arguably worth contesting, but when the overall strength of the argument against the case is so strong it isn’t really necessary. What is notable is that the arguments raised by the authors of “All One” fail even to convince some pro-feminist expositors. The following commentary was written by pro-feminist Biblical professor Kenton Sparks:1 ‘If this reading of Genesis is accurate, then it is very important for the egalitarian argument. It will mean that patriarchal authority was not an intention of God either before or after the fall, and it will further mean that patriarchal authority is itself an expression of our fallen humanity. By all means, if we join these exegetical observations about the creation with the theological trajectory that we have already seen in Scripture, then male headship in the family and church is something to be rid of as soon as possible. But frankly, I do not believe that this reading of Genesis does the text justice. Although Genesis 1 describes the male and female as full equals who jointly bear the divine image, there is no reason to suppose that this is an expression of pure asymmetrical egalitarianism, especially when this text is situated properly within its biblical and theological context. That the woman was made from man to be his helper, and that he twice names her (Gen. 2:23; 3:20), as he does the animals (2:20), suggests his priority and thus authority over her – just as 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 11:5-10 indicate.’2 ‘As for Genesis 3:16, despite egalitarian objections, it remains very likely that the subordination of Eve to Adam is a prescription from God rather than a mere description of the fall’s natural consequences. (Page 32) As many scholars have noted, God’s judgments upon the serpent, woman, and man in Genesis 3:14-19 are cast in the form of his legal judgments against them. In the case of the serpent and the man there is no question that God has punished each by pronouncing curses, first upon the serpent itself (3:14-15) and then upon the ground that Adam tills (3:17-19). These are not mere consequences of sin; they are divine judgments followed by divine acts, as we are told explicitly in 8:21 (it was God who cursed the ground). On the basis of the judgments received by both the serpent and Adam, we should expect that Eve’s punishment was also by divine prescription. And this was certainly so. God explicitly tells the woman in 3:16, “I will increase your pain in childbearing; in pain you will birth children. And your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you” (my translation). It was the decree and action of God, and not merely the fall of humanity itself, that produced the hierarchies so endemic to human families and society. The tendency to think otherwise about 3:16 sometimes arises when the clause “he will rule over you” is interpreted more negatively, as in, “he will dominate you”. If this translation were accurate then perhaps we would have cause to rethink the text, but there is no reason to render the phrase so negatively, as if God had done something in the first half of 3:16 that indirectly led men to oppressing women in the second half of the verse. The Hebrew masal, “to rule”, is standard political language for royal power over one’s subjects (e.g., Ps. 8:7). Whether the exercise of this authority is sinful depends on the one wielding it, but it remains true enough that women lost ground in the post-fall economy of power. Genesis 3:16 does not explicitly tell us why God instituted this hierarchical structure, but we can surmise that the issue was authority. Just as human societies require divinely appointed authorities to promote order and stability, so too there is a corresponding need for authority and order in the family.’3 _______ 1 '…I am prepared to accept a larger role for women in church leadership than church tradition has heretofore permitted', '…the ordination of women to the ministry seems to me entirely suitable as Christian practice', Kenton L Sparks, ‘God’s Word In Human Words’ (Baker Academic:2008), page 354 2 Ibid, page 349 3 Kenton L Sparks, ‘God’s Word In Human Words’ (Baker Academic:2008), page 349

(Page 29) On pages 41-43 (and also in chapter 15), it is argued that since believers in Christ are not under the Law, sisters are no longer restricted to certain roles and positions and may take any they choose. Yet Paul teaches explicitly that sisters still have roles which are specific to them (such as in Titus 2:3-5), and that certain roles are not available to them (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12). Indeed, although believers in Christ are not under the letter of the Law, Paul teaches explicitly that the principles of the Law still apply, and that they are still a guide to the role of brothers and sisters in the ecclesia (1 Corinthians 14:34), the exact opposite of the argument made by the authors of “All One”. On page 45 it is argued that in Philippians 4:9 ‘There is no hint that a major part of Paul’s work, preaching and teaching, was an example only to brothers and not to sisters’. This is true; Paul’s entire life was to be an example to others. But to infer from this that all the roles and positions held by Paul were available to both brethren and sisters is not logical. Christ is the ultimate example for us all, and we are repeatedly exhorted to follow him as such, but this does not mean that we are able to occupy all of his roles. On pages 48-49 the same type of error in reasoning is used as applied to Philippians 4:9. It is argued that since neither the passages quoted from Romans or Colossians refer specifically to gender distinctions in roles, that no such distinctions exist in the ecclesia. Even if this were true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In fact, we know from other explicit passages of Scripture that such distinctions do exist, so the fallacy of suppressed evidence has been used here. On page 52 it is argued with regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that ‘the normal picture presented in the New Testament is very different’ to this passage, and on page 61 it is argued that Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus ‘indicate an emergency response to particular problems which had arisen in Ephesus and Crete’. But although there is evidence within these letters that certain instructions are specific to the local situation, there is no evidence that the purpose of each letter is specific only to a local situation, and not applicable to all ecclesias. The argument being proposed is that ‘these letters contain specific instruction concerning local problems, therefore everything in them is specific only to local problems and not indicative of orthodoxy and the Scripturally ‘right way’ of doing things within the entire Christian community’. On the contrary, Paul’s letters of admonishment are always for the purpose of redirecting the wayward back to the standard beliefs and practices of the entire community, a fact which he sometimes makes explicit (1 Corinthians 11:16;14:33-34). This failure to take other (page 30) evidence into account means that suppressed evidence is also being used in this case. On pages 59-60 it is argued with regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that ‘As far as we are aware, no Christadelphian actually accepts this command as it stands’, and this is offered as a justification for the position of the authors. We will not argue whether the authors are correct in this assertion as that is not central to the issue. Many ecclesias will disagree that they do not follow the Biblical teaching of Paul. The central issue is that the Biblical teaching stands irrespective of who upholds it. On page 68 it is noted that in 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul uses the word ANDRES ‘i.e. “men” as distinct from “women”‘, yet on the very next page it is argued ‘If, therefore, Paul wished to forbid sisters from praying, it is strange that he did not say so precisely, rather than leaving people to deduce it’. But Paul uses a term which refers specifically to the men ‘as distinct from "women", indicating that only men are his subject, just as the following verse applies solely to women. On pages 60, 80, and 88 it is argued that there is insufficient detail or clarity in the passages under discussion to be certain of what they mean (‘uncertainties of context, translation and interpretation’, ‘both translation and meaning are open to considerable debate’, and ‘their original meaning and application are uncertain’ on page 80), and yet a meaning contrary to the standard interpretation is confidently asserted in every case (‘We can be confident that’, and ‘It is clear that’ on page 60, ‘the passage could be paraphrased and expanded to read as below’ on page 80, and ‘Though details are scarce this passage does not support the commonly-held view that sisters may not teach brothers but may only teach other sisters or children’ on page 88). This argument wrongly invokes the appeal to ignorance, implying that since we may not be certain of one view but there is no evidence against an alternative view, that the alternative view may be asserted with confidence.

It appears that these have been included (along with similar material), simply to contribute to the argument that ‘The New Testament states explicitly that sisters were actively and heavily involved in a range of ecclesial activities, so it is highly unlikely that they weren’t also in positions of leadership and teaching the congregation’. This is not a relevant conclusion. Chapter 6 of “All One – NT” (‘"Brothers and Sisters" in the New Testament’), argues that since the Greek word ADELFOI (normatively, ‘brothers’), can be a generic reference to both brothers and sisters in certain contexts ‘means that passages addressed to “brethren” refer to all (page 27) the believers unless clearly specified to the contrary or unless there is overwhelming reason to suppose otherwise’. The Scriptural evidence is to the contrary. The primary meaning of ADELFOI is a reference to males who are the sons of one mother. A secondary meaning is to males who share a non-literal ‘brotherhood’ on a legal, tribal, spiritual, or other figurative basis, or a male who is being referred to with affection. Maleness is the predominant way the scriptures use ADELFOI, where who is referred needs to be established by the context. The broader use of the term as a reference to ‘brothers and sisters’ on a legal, tribal, spiritual, or other figurative basis is likewise established by context. When the word ADELFOI appears in a text, the natural reading is ‘brothers’ as a reference to males unless the context indicates otherwise. For example, the word ADELFOI in the following phrases is typically not translated ‘brothers and sisters’: ‘Jeconiah and his brothers’, Matthew 1:11 ‘Judah and his brothers’, Matthew 1:2 ‘Jesus’ mother and his brothers’ and ‘his brothers’, Mark 3:31-32 ‘five brothers’, Luke 16:28 ‘his mother and his brothers’, John 2:12 ‘Jesus’ brothers’, John 7:3 ‘his own brothers’, John 7:5 ‘his brothers’, John 7:10 ‘his brothers’, Acts 1:14 ‘the Lord’s brothers’, 1 Corinthians 9:5 It is significant that the passages using ADELFOI to refer to Christ’s siblings are not typically translated as a reference to his brothers and sisters, even though in none of these cases is there any qualification in the verse indicating explicitly that the ADELFOI here are males, and even though we know full well that Jesus had sisters (Mark 6:3). This makes it clear that the natural reading of the word is brothers. Many times in Paul’s letters the reference is to brothers and sisters, and this is determined from the context (typically a greeting or farewell which is explicitly addressed to a congregation). Paul uses the word ADELFOI (nominative masculine plural), and its declensions ADELFOUS (accusative masculine plural), or PSEUDADELFOIS, ‘false brothers’ (dative masculine plural), to refer to ‘brothers in Christ’ as opposed to ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ in the following places: (page 28) 2 Corinthians 8:23: ADELFOI, referring to the messengers of the ecclesia, the context indicating that this refers to three men. One is ‘Titus’ (verse 16), one is ‘the brother who is praised by all the ecclesias (verse 18), also referred to as ‘this brother ‘(verse 19), and the third is ‘our brother’ whom ‘we are sending with them (verse 22). 2 Corinthians 9:3: ADELFOUS, referring to the same messengers of the ecclesia already identified in the previous chapter as three men (see above). 2 Corinthians 9:5 ADELFOUS, referring to the same messengers of the ecclesia as verse 3. 2 Corinthians 11:9: ADELFOI, referring to the ‘brothers having come from Macedonia’. 2 Corinthians 11:26: PSEUDADELFOIS, referring to ‘false brothers’ in Paul’s list of dangers he has encountered. Galatians 1:2: ADELFOI, referring to the brothers who are with Paul at the time of his writing the epistle. Galatians 2:4: PSEUDADELFOUS, referring to ‘false brothers’ who were brought in secretly to spy on Paul. Philippians 4:21: ADELFOI, referring to the brothers who are with Paul at the time of his writing the epistle. 1 Timothy 5:1: ADELFOUS, referring to ‘the younger men’. 1 Timothy 6:2: ADELFOI, referring to Christian masters. Hebrews 2:12: ADELFOUS, quoting Psalm 22:22 which refers to males. Much is then made in ‘All One’ of the role lists in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, and it is argued that since no gender distinction is made in the lists of these passages, all these roles are available to both brothers and sisters. In the general sense this is true (certainly sisters can be teachers of women and children, as we find in Titus 2:3-5), but in the more specific sense argued for (that sisters can take on every role which brothers may take), it ignores the fact that there are explicit passages elsewhere in Paul’s writings which identify certain leadership and teaching positions as specifically the role of the brothers. It also ignores the fact that there are explicit passages elsewhere in Paul’s writings which exclude sisters from certain leadership and teaching positions (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12).

Other errors in reasoning - ‘All One – NT’ The two papers ‘All One - OT’ and ‘All One - NT’ both suffer from a number of errors in reasoning. Examples not covered elsewhere in this booklet are: Throughout the work (in a number of different places), the overall argument is made that since we are ‘all one’ in Christ then sisters must have exactly the same capacity to speak and teach as brothers. Abundant evidence is presented to demonstrate that in Christ men and women have a degree of equality and freedom which is not only significantly superior to that experienced under traditional Jewish, Greek and Roman societies, but also even under many modern Western societies. However, it does not logically follow from this that sisters must have exactly the same capacity to speak and teach as brothers. A body of (page 25) evidence which leads to one conclusion is being misapplied and presented as leading to a different conclusion (fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion). It is repeatedly urged that since men and women in Christ had a degree of equality and freedom which was superior to that experienced under traditional Jewish, Greek and Roman, then the sisters must necessarily have exactly the same capacity to speak and teach as brothers. Similarly persistent throughout the work (especially in the second paper, ‘All One – OT’), is the argument that the case argued for is valid on the basis that it is particularly satisfactory to many sisters, and that it produces results which are considered to be “good”. The consequences of the arguments for the case are in this instance not evidence that the case is valid. The validity of the case rests instead on an exposition of the Biblical evidence On pages 28-29 it is argued that since Euodias and Syntyche are described as having ‘laboured side by side’ with Paul (not ‘under’ Paul), they must necessarily have had the same position as he did, and must therefore have been able to speak and teach as he did. It is then extrapolated from this that all sisters are able to do the same. But the conclusion does not follow the premise. The fact that Euodias and Syntyche are described as having ‘laboured side by side’ with Paul does not mean that they had the same role but they worked with him to further the spread of the gospel message. On pages 29-30 the same argument is essentially repeated. It is argued that since in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:8-9; 16:16, 19; 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25-30; Romans 16:3; Philemon 24; Acts 18:26 brethren and sisters are described as ‘fellow workers’, there must have been no distinction between their roles (‘there is no difference expressed in the work they do’, page 29, ‘When Paul speaks of both brothers and sisters as “fellow workers” (synergoi), those who “work (kopiao) in the Lord”, no difference can be seen in the work described’, page 33). Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, those who ‘labour among you’ (a phrase previously presented as indicative of sharing the same role), are described as ‘over you in the Lord’, identifying them as having a role over others which is not shared by all in the ecclesia. This is the fallacy of suppressed evidence. That brethren and sisters are described as ‘fellow workers’ does not mean that they all had the same role, or that there were no distinctions made between roles and positions of authority. Indeed, on page 33 it is acknowledged that ‘This does not mean that all the people described in Paul’s letters did exactly the same’. (Page 26) The statement that ‘When Paul speaks of both brothers and sisters as “fellow workers” (synergoi), those who “work (kopiao) in the Lord”, no difference can be seen in the work described’ (page 33), is demonstrably untrue. Even if it were true it is certainly not logical to conclude from this that all who are ‘fellow workers’ must have had work involving ‘leadership and teaching as well as action and example’. There is no evidence for this, and the fact that specific leadership and teaching responsibilities are defined explicitly elsewhere as appointments for the brethren (both the Greek word PRESBUTEROS, translated ‘elder’, and the word EPISKOPOI, translated ‘bishop’ or ‘overseer’ are applied only to men), contradicts the argument. If Paul had really intended to teach that all brethren and sisters could undertake identical leadership and teaching roles, it would be possible to identify where he is teaching this. On page 30 Aquila and Priscilla are presented as having taught Apollos, and the comment is made ‘Teaching is evidently one of the activities undertaken by Paul’s fellow workers, as we would expect of those who were spreading the gospel’. There is certainly no dispute that teaching was ‘one of the activities undertaken by Paul’s fellow workers’, but the implication made here is that this proves no distinction was made in teaching roles, which we know is not the case because Apollos at that time was not a brother in Christ, hence the conclusion drawn is not relevant. On pages 30-32 it is argued that the fact that sisters can be deacons, Phoebe was a PROSTATIS, and Junia may have been an apostle are somehow significant to the issue of sisters leading and speaking in the ecclesia. In fact none of the examples given contribute significantly to the issue under discussion, and it seems from the carefully qualified terms used that this was recognised by the authors themselves to be of little consequence to the main case (‘Opinion is divided as to how diakonos and prostatis should be understood’, page 30, ‘As with diakonos it is difficult to be sure of the meaning’, page 31, ‘This reference to Junias/Junia has too much ambiguity to prove that women could be described as “apostles”’, page 32).

(Page 23) In summary the foundation claim that no distinctions are to be made between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia is falsified by both the negative and positive evidence. All arguments presented in an attempt to support this claim are necessarily contrived and close examination will prove them logically flawed. This may seem a strong statement, but in the following pages it will be seen that all arguments made in “All One – NT and All One – OT” follow exactly the same process of reasoning. Arguments typically made are: Circumcision is no longer necessary, therefore no distinctions are to be made between the respective roles of men and women in the ecclesia The male priesthood has been annulled, therefore no distinctions are to be made between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia Jesus treated women very differently to the way they were traditionally treated in Jewish society and religious practice, therefore no distinctions are to be made between the respective roles of men and women in the ecclesia Salvation is now available to all, Jew or Gentile, and no distinctions are made in this offer of salvation, therefore no distinctions (socially or gender based), are to be made between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia All of these arguments ignore evidence against the argument and yet establish a conclusion and then claim that this supports an apparently related but in fact different conclusion. The very fact that they require the redefinition of concepts explicitly defined in Scripture (such as circumcision and its significance), identifies them as contrived, and therefore the conclusion is not valid. In summary this review of arguments presented in the two papers has identified inconsistencies in the authors’ case: Contradictory arguments: On the one hand it is argued with regard to Christs’ appointment of male disciples; ‘In a very male-orientated society he is shown as revolutionary in his approach to women, as he was in his attitudes on many other matters’ (page 24), yet on the other it is argued, ‘In view of the above it might be expected that Jesus would have appointed at least one woman among the twelve disciples. Considering, however, the common religious and social attitudes towards women, it would be surprising if he had done so’ (page 24). Likewise, with regard to the appointment of men in positions of ecclesial leadership it is argued on the one hand that ‘It was only after the resurrection, when the message began to spread world-wide, that (page 24) women, Gentiles and slaves were able to take a fuller part’ (page 24), and yet on the other it is argued ‘Since the elders would have a public profile in dealing with authorities, we would not expect a woman to be appointed among them’ (page 85). Contra indicatory evidence: It is argued that Jesus did not appoint female disciples because he was ‘restricted to what was possible within the Jewish environment’ (page 24), yet there is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus considered himself so restricted, and much evidence that he felt completely unrestricted. Likewise it is argued that the disciples were constrained by Jewish opinion and tradition, and the position of women in the wider Greek and Roman society, such that the appointment of women to positions of authoritative teaching and leadership in the ecclesia was not possible due to the controversy it would cause. Yet the evidence demonstrates that the disciples felt no such constraint, the sisters preaching publicly at Pentecost and Philip the evangelist’s daughters ‘prophesying’ (an offence to Jews, Greeks, and Romans), and the disciples prepared to cause such controversy with their actions that they were occasionally jailed. The case not affirmed (negative evidence): If the key texts really do have the meanings which are claimed by the authors then why the complete lack of evidence for sisters in positions of authoritative teaching and leadership in the ecclesia? The case explicitly denied (positive evidence): There is positive evidence in the Scriptures (acknowledged by those promoting the case), that even under the new covenant certain distinctions remained between the respective roles of men and women in the ecclesia.

If the removal of circumcision under the new covenant really represented the availability of a new personal relationship with God for women, then what was Paul attempting to communicate when he circumcised Timothy? Was he making a statement about the relationship of Jewish women to God? If so, it was a statement destructive to the authors’ case, as by that interpretation it would mean that even under the new covenant there was no change in the exclusion of women from the supposed special relationship with God enjoyed only by men, even though the ritual symbolising it had been removed. Now that the premises on which this claim is based have been proved false, this claim has lost the support which was proposed for it. However, it is still important to examine this claim separately and see if the Scriptural evidence supports it. Positive evidence against this claim would not only confirm that it is a false conclusion for the argument previously presented, but would also (page 22) mean it is a false claim no matter which arguments are proposed to support it. Is there evidence in the Scriptures that even under the new covenant distinctions remained between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia? The answer is yes: Christ and apostles continue the old covenant practice of granting certain appointments to men exclusive of women, specifically where the leadership of the ecclesia is concerned (elders, ‘PRESBUTEROI’, and overseers, ‘EPISKOPOI’ are always described as male) Paul describes restrictions and practices regarding women speaking and teaching which are not applied to men (1 Corinthians 11:3, 5, 10; 14:33-35; 1 Timothy 2:12) As noted previously, this evidence for distinctions between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia is acknowledged in “All One – NT”. For example: ‘In view of the above it might be expected that Jesus would have appointed at least one woman among the twelve disciples. Considering, however, the common religious and social attitudes towards women, it would be surprising if he had done so’ (page 24) ‘Little success could have been expected if Jesus had attempted to appoint women followers in general in a preaching mission, for Jewish attitudes towards woman’s authority would have hindered his message. Although Jesus’ mission was soon to spread to the whole world, it started among the Jews, and was therefore restricted to what was possible within the Jewish environment’ (page 24) ‘Since the elders would have a public profile in dealing with authorities, we would not expect a woman to be appointed among them’ (page 85) ‘In view of the general male leadership which existed in society in the first century, and in view of the problems in Crete which Paul was aiming to tackle, it is not surprising if the elders there were all male’ (page 88) Leaving aside the explanations given for such a distinction (which are addressed elsewhere in this booklet), the fact is that the evidence for the distinction is undeniable. Such a distinction existed during the ministry of Christ, during the early apostolic era, and even during the later apostolic era near the end of Paul’s life. There is no suggestion that this distinction was a temporary measure, a local expedient, or a socio-cultural concession. It is described and practised as normal for the ecclesial community.

Identifying Poor Reasoning The evidence thus far examined identifies the method of interpretation being used as demonstrably supporting conclusions already decided on. The most telling indication of this is the manipulation of the method of interpretation to avoid conclusions contrary to the case, and to reach conclusions which support it. Another indication is the reinterpretation of texts interpreted explicitly by Scripture. For example, it is claimed that circumcision represented a personal relationship of the man with God, a privileged relationship the woman did not share: ‘Baptism for a woman underlined how much she was now valued as an individual believer. Previously, under Judaism, her commitment was through the male, for circumcision applied only to men. But in Christ she was received into the new movement as an individual in her own right. Baptism was the same mode of commitment for male and female believers, underlining the essential unity of the new movement in Christ. All One – NT, page 24 On the basis of this assumption it is then argued that since the ritual of circumcision was removed by the new covenant, this privileged relationship with God is no longer restricted to men, and both men and women are free to share with God the same level of relationship. From this it is further extrapolated that no distinctions are to be made between the respective roles of men and women in the ecclesia. This is an example of contrived exposition. An artificial distinction is invented (a privileged relationship enjoyed by men only, indicated by circumcision), its removal described (the end of circumcision under the new covenant), and it is then argued on this basis that another distinction does not exist (distinctions between the respective participation of men and women in the ecclesia), though this distinction is completely unrelated to the first. Disentangling such reasoning can be challenging, which is why it is so commonly misleading. In this case the primary fault is with the very first premise, though each premise is flawed and thus the entire process of reasoning is wrong. The correct method of addressing the argument is simply (page 21) to compare each claim with what the Bible says. An examination of each part of the argument follows:- Circumcision represented a personal relationship of the man with God, a privileged relationship the woman did not share, the woman being related to God only ‘through the male’ “All in One - OT” pages 163, 225. There is no evidence for this in the Bible... The reason for circumcision is made explicit in Scripture (it is the sign of the covenant made by God and Abraham, and Abraham’s seed as a corporate body not individuals, Genesis 17:9-14), and even when referred to symbolically or used as an analogy it never represents a privileged relationship enjoyed only by men (it is used of the repudiation of the lusts of the flesh, Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, Colossians 2:11). The ritual of circumcision was removed by the new covenant to show this privileged relationship with God is no longer restricted to men “All in One - OT” page 225. Scripture says nothing of this. Throughout the New Testament circumcision is referred to repeatedly, as it became a matter of great contention among both converted and unconverted Jews. In all the verses which address circumcision there is never the slightest hint that its removal under the new covenant signified any change in the personal relationship of women to God, though it is stated explicitly that this removal certainly represents freer access to God for the uncircumcised Gentile. Furthermore, although circumcision was no longer a required ritual (Acts 15:5, 19-20, 24, 28-29), and although the apostles explicitly denied the necessity of circumcision for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile (Acts 15:24, 28-29, Galatians 2:1-5, 11-14; 5:2-3, 6, 15), Paul still carried out the circumcision of Timothy when circumstances required this stumbling block to be removed (Acts 16:1-3).

(Page 19) What Did The Apostles Do? A further contradiction is found when the paper attempts to explain why in the apostolic era (subsequent to the ascension of Christ), the apostles continued Christ’s practice of appointing only males to the positions of elder, ‘PRESBUTEROS’, and overseer, ‘EPISKOPOS’. Earlier in the “All One – NT” paper we were told that ‘It was only after the resurrection, when the message began to spread world-wide, that women, Gentiles and slaves were able to take a fuller part’ (page 24), yet when we come to examine the evidence of what happened ‘after the resurrection’, and ‘when the message began to spread world-wide’, we find the same pattern of male appointment as existed in Christ’s day. The paper attempts to address this by arguing that the apostles submitted to the inequities of the Gentile society just as Jesus had submitted to the inequities of the Jewish society: Since the elders would have a public profile in dealing with authorities, we would not expect a woman to be appointed among them’ (page 85) ‘In view of the general male leadership which existed in society in the first century, and in view of the problems in Crete which Paul was aiming to tackle, it is not surprising if the elders there were all male’ (page 88) This is in direct contradiction to the previous claim that ‘It was only after the resurrection, when the message began to spread world-wide, that women, Gentiles and slaves were able to take a fuller part’ (page 24). Given the opposition to women speaking and teaching in the congregation which we find in the 1st century Jewish community (well documented in both papers), it is remarkable that we find no record of any controversy in the New Testament regarding this. When the apostles taught that the Gentiles could be part of God’s plan of salvation, there was a huge reaction from the Jews. When the apostles taught that circumcision was not necessary (at least for the Gentiles), there was an equally dramatic reaction from the Jews. When the apostles taught that the Law of Moses was no longer binding on anyone in Christ (Jew or Gentile), the reaction from the Jews was nothing short of violent. And yet we are asked to believe that the apostles regularly appointed women to positions of public speaking and teaching in the congregation, yet this elicited absolutely no response from the Jews. This is unlikely in the extreme, especially as ‘All One - NT’ claims that fear of the societal response was the reason why the apostles did not appoint women to the positions of PRESBUTEROS and EPISKOPOS. The absence of any controversy is not evidence that no such appointments took place (that would be an argument from silence). But the absence certainly must (page 20) be accounted for by those who believe such appointments did take place, especially since both papers argue repeatedly that the social taboos and religious traditions of the Jews were so great an impediment that they prevented Jesus from appointing women as his personal disciples, and prevented the apostles from appointing women as PRESBUTEROI and EPISKOPOI. Once again the arguments presented contain internal contradictions, and are unsupported by the available evidence.