by The following is an answer to some of the remarks made in the recently published article by Pastor Jim Davis.
I want to preface these remarks by saying that I have had the privilege of communicating with Mr Davis in the past. My impression of him is of a godly man of much spiritual substances. I had many all-too-brief, but highly enjoyable conversations with him in the brief time we knew each other. My remarks below regarding Mr Davis’s doctrine should not be interpreted as an attack on that brother personally.
I also want to declare my unqualified support for what our sister 7.genie is doing and has done by founding and putting so much energy into the maintenance of this online community. I do not believe that our sister has done anything which is contrary to the word of God – on the contrary, she has served the saints tirelessly and with love and boundless patience.
I will only address here the second half of Mr Davis’s article – this is the portion which has caused me the greatest concern.
In the first paragraph of the second part of the article, Mr Davis speaks about the equality of men and woman – a principle which is enshrined in the word of God. I entirely go along with him regarding that. However, we come to this declaration: “Gen. 2:23 laid the foundation for regarding women as created equal, to rule or take dominion as a team, in unity and as one flesh.” Now, this is right. However, it is only a partial picture. This passage in Genesis 2 is a beautiful pre-figuring of Christ and the assembly (the Church). Christ went into death, the “deep sleep”, and the fruits of His death are the assembly. The assembly is derived from Christ – it is of Him, bone of His bones, and flesh of His flesh – and so it is a wholly suitable counterpart to Him. “Christ”, we are told in Ephesians 5:25, “loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it” &c – precious thoughts. Mr Davis’s thought is right, in that he says that the Man and the Woman were take dominion together – in a future day, Christ and the saints, the assembly, will reign together. However, there is one vital aspect of all this which we can never forget: that is, that the assembly can never occupy the place of Christ, and Christ – speaking reverently and carefully of God, for Whom all things are possible – can never occupy the place of the assembly. The assembly is formed as a creature vessel which answers to the affections of Christ’s heart, and satisfies them completely. He is everything to the assembly, the Bridegroom who has the bride. There we see the beauty of mutual affection, and the glory of the accomplishment of divine counsels.
Now, when we regard Man and Woman as interchangeable, indistinguishable, then we lose sight of that beautiful picture of Christ and the assembly. Satan, the ruler of this evil world, is doing his best to destroy the distinction between men and women, and is having a dreadful degree of success in this area. Sadly, the modern, ‘progressive’ thinking of the corrupt world has infiltrated Christendom, and caused even some of the most well-grounded to question the plain word of God and try to explain it away. This grieves me, very deeply. The matter under discussion is not, for me, an intellectual matter, or a discussion about organisational protocol – it’s a heart matter. To me, God’s ordering speaks of Christ and the assembly. To remove the distinction between men and women is to destroy a beautiful picture which God has purposely set in place in His order – destruction which is ultimately degrading to both men and women. It isn’t an accident that the apostle Paul, before he gives his instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:33 regarding the silence of women in the assembly, observes this: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.” This, of course, relates to what comes before it regarding prophesying, but it links to what comes next. Do not misunderstand me: I have no desire to silence or oppress women, and neither did Paul. Sadly, the attempts to explain away the scriptures regarding women’s place under assembly conditions often attribute to the apostle a false motivation of cultural influence, or even disdain for women, rather than his true driving force: the order of Christ’s assembly which was so precious to him.
The next statement of Mr Davis’s which must be addressed is this one: “Men and women leaders were instructed to have one spouse, one at a time, because polygamy was a legal part of their culture.” I assume this is a reference to Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7, if we are to assume that ‘leaders’ are the elders spoken of there. If we turn to these scriptures, we notice that there is no mention there of men and women having a “spouse”. We have, in both scriptures, a “husband of one wife” spoken of. Doubtless this was because of the polygamy practiced by the unbelievers, but this doesn’t change the fact that it is a “husband” and not a ‘person’ or any other variation. In 1 Timothy, the definition of one suitable to be an overseer goes on, “conducting his own house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if one does not know how to conduct his own house, how shall he take care of the assembly of God?)” Now, it is impossible to deny that, throughout the scriptures, the husband is viewed as the head of the house. This does not in any way diminish the place of a wife, or her authority over her children, but the fact remains that the head of the household is the husband, where there is a husband. We can see here the danger of pursuing the agenda that the article under examination advances – a whole swathe of scriptural principles are torn down in the wake of it, because the truth is one whole and cannot be divided.
Mr Davis then goes on to produce “strong examples of women leaders” in the Old Testament. I have recently written about Deborah, and noticed the way she acted powerfully within her own sphere, never usurping the authority of Barak, but correcting his insufficiencies in her capacity as judge and prophetess. The example of Deborah condemns, rather than supports, the modern inclination to put women in the place of men.
Mr Davis then goes on to use Athaliah, Queen of Judah as an example. I can see nothing whatsoever commendable in the example of murderous Athaliah, daughter of the wicked Ahab, who took Jezebel as his wife. Athaliah is introduced to in the scriptures as murdering all the royal seed of the house of Judah, showing her deep hatred and opposition to the true leadership of Judah. One can hardly imagine a more sobering picture of female ambition wreaking destruction in its opposition to the divine order.
Then we come to Miriam, whom Mr Davis describes as a “worship leader”. He omits to mention who Miriam led in worship: “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the tambour in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambours and with dances” (Exodus 15:20, emphasis mine). It is not my intention to criticise Miriam. However, we must remember that she, along with Aaron, spoke against Moses (Numbers 12), inflated by their prophetic status, and Miriam was struck with leprosy in view of her insubjection to the authority which God had established in Moses.
Next, we have this: “Women are not any more easily deceived than men. In 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul states that as the serpent deceived Eve, so the minds of the people (men and women) could be corrupted.” Mr Davis, in his hasty pursuit of his objective, forgets Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:14: ” Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.” This scripture should not be taken to be objective statement of truth that women are more easily deceived than men, as Mr Davis rightly argues. He is also right to notice that in 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul is talking about both men and women without distinction. However, the apostle never makes the argument that women are weak-minded and gullible. He merely cites, in 1 Timothy 2:14, a fact of man’s history as the unchangeable principle from which his instruction to the assemblies flows.
Then, we find Mr Davis making an assumption, again, in his zeal for the agenda which he is advancing: “Paul allowed the women to speak, them tells them to keep quiet. It cannot be both ways: pray and prophesy and keep quiet. 1 Cor. 11:5, 1 Cor. 14:34 So, what gives?” Paul speaks about women praying and prophesying, for sure. However, nowhere does he indicate that this prayer is vocal in the assembly, or that this prophesying is in the assembly. In the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle is speaking in general terms – only after the division at the end of verse 16 does he address collective conditions.
“Paul was speaking to a specific group of people for a specific purpose. He is not commanding all women for all time, as it is NOT found in other scriptures that women shouldn’t teach.” Mr Davis is caught in an inescapable contradiction here. If Paul was indeed speaking to the Corinthians as a specific group of people for a specific purpose, why does he tell them that women can pray and prophesy in the assembly, then, in the same letter, tell them that women should be silent in the assembly? If he wrote to one assembly and directed the public prayer and prophesying of their women, and wrote to another and commanded their women to be silent because of local disorder, then the argument would be valid. However, these instructions are to the same people, and the word of God never contradicts itself.
Mr Davis cites Deuteromomy 6:7 and Titus 2:3-4 to support his statement that, “Women are told to teach their children and to teach younger women.” I find no mention whatsoever of women in Deuteronomy 6:7, or the surrounding scriptures. The instruction is addressed to Israel, corporately, and no doubt has in view both men and women, fathers and mothers, teaching their children (“sons”, to be exact) the commandments, statutes and ordinances of their God. In Titus, we find “elder women” exhorted to be “teachers of what is right; that they may admonish the young women to be attached to their husbands, to be attached to their children, discreet, chaste, diligent” &c. The expression “teachers of what is right” in no sense gives them an official place of teachers in the assembly – it is simply an expressed desire that by their conduct, manner of life, and words, they should teach the younger women by example. Even if we were to make this a systematic thing – which I strongly resist – then this simply makes women teachers of ‘women’s ministries’ and Sunday schools.
Then, we have this: “In the church at Ephesus, gentiles were being converted and coming into the Jewish congregation with which they were not familiar. He was telling them to keep quiet and not teach until they had learned themselves. [It could be that a woman was to ask her questions at home because men and women sat on opposite sides of the synagogue!] 1 Tim. 2; 11, 12″ Firstly, I am at a loss to see how Mr Davis links this instruction of the apostle with the locality of Ephesus – although I fully admit that his scholarship exceeds mine. However, I would encourage him not to stop reading his Bible – particularly, not to stop reading at 1 Timothy 2:12, and to continue reading where the apostle bases his instruction that women should not teach or exercise authority over a man with the fact that Adam was formed first, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul’s instruction has at its root the actions of the very first man and woman, not the arrangements of the synagogues – places which were increasingly abandoned in favour of meeting in the houses of the brethren in any case, due to the opposition of the Jews.
Mr Davis, a pastor, says this: “Women can be in authority over men as it is God who delegates authority. Eph. 1:22″ Paul, to whom God delegated apostolic authority, and whose words are divinely inspired, says this: “Let a woman learn in quietness and all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness.” Who to believe? Mr Davis on one hand, or the apostle Paul and God’s word on the other? The former’s appeal to Ephesians 1:22 baffles me.
There is a good deal in Mr Davis’s next remarks which I can go on with quite happily. His ideas as to authority in general are sound and scriptural: “Those in authority are to support, encourage, and strengthen others. It is never OK to usurp authority, be it man or woman. Usurping authority means to act as oneself independently, acting to elevate oneself above another and not assuming ones proper place. Taking authority, in an area not given by God, is usurping authority. True spiritual authority is about servant hood, not lording over someone (self-serving). Authority is delegated from Jesus but is not absolute. We do not have absolute authority over another even if we have been given authority.” I would just like to repeat one particular phrase: “Taking authority, in an area not given by God, is usurping authority.” I agree wholeheartedly. I think Mr Davis would be hard-pressed to find a scripture which shows that it is right for a women to enter a place where the scripture solely places a man. Mr Davis has helpfully (although not to his own argument) drawn on the example of Athaliah – a woman who desired so much to sit in the place of a man, a king, that when her designs of being Queen Mother were frustrated she slaughtered her way to the throne. Ambition is a cruel master.
Mr Davis then goes on to ask, “Were women ever ministers to men in the New Testament?” and seeks to answer the question by a series of examples. Although the answer to his question is most definitely yes, none of the examples he gives serves to substantiate his over-arching argument.
Anna was a prophetess, for sure, as were several notable women before her. A prophetess, however, is not a minister in the sense of a leader. The Samaritan woman of John 4 shared the good news of her salvation with all in her town – highly commendable and worthy of imitation though that is, it is not leadership or authority. That women in the gospels first carried the good news of a risen Christ to the rest of the brethren is also wonderful, but, again, not leadership or authority. That men and women will prophesy in the last days is again, no depature in God’s ways, and no indication of female leadership, but rather a recognition of spiritual equality.
Mr Davis then makes reference to Aquila and Priscilla, and how they jointly took Apollos to them and instructed him. This is a beautiful example of husband and wife operating as one – it does not demonstrate female leadership or authority. Mr Davis says, “Her name is mentioned first, indicating her prominent role.” Many students of the scriptures would be quick to remind the learned pastor that in three places Aquila is mentioned first (Acts 18:2, Acts 18:26, 1 Corinthians 16:19) and in three places Priscilla is mentioned first (Acts 18:18-19, Romans 16:3, 2 Timothy 4:19). What appears to a statement of female supremacy is actually a lesson in the equality of husband and wife.
Then we have Philip’s four daughters who prophesied. What a blessed house Philip had! We see from this scripture that Philip’s prophetess daughters are brought to our attention in relation to his house – and it was in their household that their prophetic speaking is heard, not in the assembly. We aren’t told what Philip’s daughters prophesied – it was not for our benefit, but for the benefit of Philip’s household. Then, we’re immediately introduced to Agabus, a prophet, whose prophesy is public, in relation to the assembly, and is recorded in the word of God for our edification.
Mr Davis then appeals to Phoebe, “who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea”. We find that the Greek word used here is diakonon, a word which is sometimes translated into English as ‘deacon’. Deacon service is what we might call the secular ministry to the assembly, attending to the practical needs of the brethren, as seen in Acts 6. This service seems to have been initially and primarily taken up by men, but also open to women, as we see in the reference to Phoebe as a deacon.
Mr Davis states “Andronicus and Junia were named among “noted” apostles”, in which there is nothing exceptional, Andronicus being a male name, and Junia being more correctly spelled Junias, also a male name. That Paul recognised seven women by name, as Mr Davis draws attention to, for their labours is also quite uncontroversial. That many spiritual and godly women laboured and labour tireless for the Lord is no new relevation.
Mr Davis’s statement that “1 Cor. 11:4-5 Women normally prayed and prophesied in church” goes quite beyond what the scripture actually says. His claim that “1 Cor. 12, 14 Spiritual gifts were ministered by women in the church” is undoubtedly true, but neither the scriptures nor this statement show that they did so in contravention to the apostle’s instructions regarding women’s silence and subjection, or that they only exercised these gifts in an assembly setting. His observation that “Euodias and Syntyche were leaders of the church at Philippi”, based on Philippians 4:2, is frankly baffling. That the apostle should desire that women who had laboured with him the gospel, and who had sadly fallen to quarelling, should be reconciled in no way makes them leaders of the locality.
Next, we are told that, “Nymphas was a female home church leader (although the KJV translators erroneously translate this verse as “his church.” The elder/leader of the church described in John 2 was a woman.) It is best to consult the original Greek for accuracy. “ While I disagree with Mr Davis on his interpretation of the Greek (αὐτοῦ is almost invariably translation in the masculine through scripture), it matters very little whether Nymphas or Nympha were good enough to host the gathering of the local assembly in his or her house – their generosity does not make them the leader in that locality.
Mr Davis appeals to Thayer’s Greek Definitions in order to demonstrate the supposed prejudice of translators against women, describing Phoebe as “A woman set over others, a female guardian, a protectress, a patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources.” This is a perfect description of a deaconess, which Phoebe clearly was, tending to the bodily and practical needs of the saints.
In conclusion, Mr Davis says this: “Is the headship of a husband a dominant position? The position is to be as the position of Christ to the church. He is a support, a nourisher, and a builder. His consuming passion is our well being. He put the needs of the church before His very life. He said He came to serve and care for the church. It had nothing to do with ruling. He is a source of spiritual strength. The result of His headship is unity, not a hierarchy with this one on top and this one on bottom. As Father and Son are equal, so is the relationship of husband and wife. Jesus will not be exploited by God and neither should women be by their husbands. As husband and wife are compared with the relationship of Father and Son, it is one to be embraced, not feared. While some natural roles may vary, in the spiritual, men and women are created equal.” All this is very true, but what it leaves out is hugely significant. We have no mention here of the aspect of authority and subjection. Jesus came into manhood, and so into a place of subjection to His God and Father. In that relationship, of which we get precious glimpses in the Gospels, there shines out the beauty of God’s perfect order, of love between the Father and the Son, and perfect unity of thought and purpose. Of course, the Son and the Father are ever co-equal in deity, and husband and wife are equal, one flesh. However, we cannot forget the aspect of headship – if we do so, we discard an important illustration of divine principles which God has seen fit to set right in the midst of us, and in our relations with one another. This is why I greatly fear the doctrine advanced in the article I am remarking upon. On the face of it, it looks to gain something for women – a place, recognition, power. But really it robs and defrauds both men and women, distorting a beautiful figurative representation of Christ and His bride, and a needed illustration of loving headship and equally loving subjection to it. I do not believe most sincere Christians who advance this agenda do so with any thought of attacking these precious truths – it is my exercise to awaken them to the spiritual danger of their position.