The Structure of Teaching Authority, from Trinity to Church to Family: The Reason for Male Teaching Eldership

Term paper for
Doctrine of the Church
Dr. John Leonard,
Prof. Tim Trumper
Westminster Theological Seminary
Fall 2001
(Submitted to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's writing contest, Fall 2002)
Tim Black

  1. Introduction

The structure of teaching authority which begins in the Godhead, extends into the church, and from there, extends into the family, necessitates that the authority roles given to the teaching eldership be held by men alone, and not by women.1 This point has been defended in the past but does not seem to have been specifically stated in one regard: the biblical reasoning for a male teaching eldership depends not merely on an analogy between the authority roles of the husband, the elder, and of Christ, but further, it depends on an identification of the husband's authority as a substantive extension of the authority of the elder, of Christ, and of the Trinity. An analogy can fail to prove identity at the crucial points; but to say that the husband's authority is a substantive extension of the authority structure above himself is to prove identity at the crucial point.

  1. Trinity2

    1. The Doctrine of the Trinity

The doctrine of God--and especially of the trinity--is the foundation of orthodox theology, sets the central principles by which theology is organized, and provides the content from which it is derived. In the ontological trinity we see a structure of ontology: God is one in being, and three in persons. The persons are each fully and completely identical with the being of God, and the being is identical with them. This is the unity, or universality, of the being of God. At the same time, the persons remain fully and completely distinct persons. This is the diversity, or particularity, of the persons of God. In the economic trinity we see a structure of authority and submission (or, perhaps termed less precisely, an "economy of function"3): the Father is in authority over the Son, the Father and the Son are in authority over the Spirit. This is the universality of the authority of God. At the same time, the Son submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son.4 This is the particularity of the submission within God.

    1. Its Implications for Theology

The structure of the ontological and economic trinity requires our system of theology--insofar as it deals with ontology and economy in which God manifests His trinitarian glory--to remain faithful to the pattern of the trinity. In the most general terms, that pattern is as follows: 1) In regard to ontology, theology must maintain the equal ultimacy of universality and particularity: both are equally real. 2) In regard to economy, theology must maintain that universality is primary, and particularity is secondary: they exist in an ordered relation of primacy, or priority.5 3) In regard to the implied relation6 between universality and particularity, theology must maintain that they are in perfect harmony with one another: universality does not exclude particularity, particularity does not exclude universality. There is no contradiction or even subtle tension between them. Ontologically, diversity does not negate unity, nor unity diversity. Rather, the persons relate to one another in self-denial, in love and holiness.7 Economically, those in authority do not destroy those in submission, nor those in submission those in authority. Rather, those in authority sacrifice themselves for those under authority, and those under authority submit themselves to those in authority, all in love and holiness.8

    1. Unbelief and Its Opposition to the Trinity9

Over against trinitarian theology, the history of unbelieving thought has denied the relations of equal ultimacy, "primaryness"-"secondaryness," and perfect harmony, by construing universality and particularity in a dialectical relationship to each other, such that they "simultaneously mutually presuppose and mutually exclude"10 one another. To the unbeliever--who does not love the trinitarian God--unity cannot be had if diversity reigns, diversity cannot be had if unity reigns, and likewise, authority cannot be exerted without destroying those under authority, and those under authority cannot live without destroying those in authority. Unbelief is the absolute opposite of biblical, trinitarian orthodoxy.

  1. Christ and the Church

    1. Expressed in Sacrifice and Submission

The structure of authority which exists between the Father and the Son substantively extends into the structure of authority between Christ and the church. The authority relation is evident in its concomitant activities of self-sacrifice and submission. The Father "did not spare His own Son, but freely gave Him up for us all." (Rom. 8:32) "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Eph. 5:25) The Father and the Son sacrificed themselves--what would otherwise have been theirs--on behalf of the church, and Christ submitted to the Father for the glory of the Father, in order that Christ would be exalted as Lord before men and be blessed ("bestowed") by the Father. (Phil. 2:9-10) The Father's authority-relation to the Son is expressed in His (the Father's) authority-relation to the church, because the Father sacrificed Himself on both of their behalves in one and the same act. The Son's act of submission to the Father is the very substance of His authority as Lord over the church; because His humiliation, suffering and death, as well as His exaltation, were at the same time an act of submission to the Father and self-sacrifice in relation to the church (John 10:17-18). And all of the Son's authority is always an extension of the authority of the Father. (Matt. 28:18, John 5:19-47; 8:28; 14-17) Christ's authority over the church is the Father's authority over the Son.

    1. Through the Immediate Agency of the Holy Spirit

When Christ ascended bodily into heaven, He poured out the Holy Spirit on His church. Through the Spirit's immediate presence in the church, Christ is spiritually--even Holy-Spiritually--present in the church.11 I do not mean to ignore the Spirit's role in Christ's relation to His church.

    1. Paul's Focus: Christ and the Church

However, we will focus on the issue in the way Paul does, by emphasizing that Christ is the head of the church. We must fully emphasize the Spirit's subordinate but absolute divine authority over the church--the church may ignore scripture's teaching on the Spirit's trinitarian and salvific roles only to its detriment--but at the same time the church must follow the Spirit's teaching through the apostle Paul, and recognize that Christ's leadership role over His church is more prominent than the Spirit's leadership role over the church.

It is the Spirit's very immanence to, immediacy within, and concurrence with our creaturely existence and experience which makes His work largely beyond the capacity of human perception; "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8, ESV) We cannot see the Spirit's immediate work of regeneration--"where it comes from, or where it is going;" what we see is the effect--we "hear the sound."

Correlatively, it is due to His immanence that we focus on Christ as our Head. The Spirit's union and communion with the Father and the Son is what binds us to them. "The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom. 8:26-27, ESV) Likewise, it is the intimacy of the Spirit's dwelling in our hearts--it is our heartfelt fellowship with the Spirit--that directs us with Him to focus our attention on the Father and the Son. "By Him we cry, 'Abba, Father,'" (Rom. 8:15), yet at the same time, it is He Himself who cries out "Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6) He makes us a brother of Christ, and a child of God. His work is so immediate, so conjoined with our own in our experience, that it highlights the transcendence of the Father's and the Son's position relative to us. This is why we pray more often and more prominently to the Father than to the Son (cf. the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father"), why we praise the Father and the Son over and above the Spirit ("to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb...")--it is the Spirit who directs us not to glorify Himself but to glorify the Father and the Son.12 Just as Christ presents us to the Father, and the Father to us, so the Spirit presents us to Christ and the Father, and them to us. It is by means of the Spirit's immediate presence in our hearts that Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. (Eph. 3:16-17) The Son is only present to us as our Savior because the Spirit is immediately present in our hearts.

The Holy Spirit is in authority over the church just as much as is Jesus Christ. However, God the Spirit's economic subordination to the authority of God the Son, and the Spirit's economic role of being the immanent, immediate, harmoniously concurrent agent in God's relations with His church focuses the church's attention on Christ as its Head, and not on the Spirit. In conclusion, as we examine scripture's teaching on the relation between the authority of God over and in His church, we see that it is precisely the authority relation within the economic trinity which leads us to focus not on the immediate Agent who is in authority over the church--the Holy Spirit--but rather on the exalted Head of the church, Jesus Christ. This is the focus of the apostle Paul, who was carried along by the Holy Spirit, and thus was a man speaking from God. (2 Pet. 2:21) When we His church exalt Christ over the Spirit, we exalt God over all.13

  1. Church Offices

Christ extends His authority over the church into the authority which church officers exercise. Church authority is Christ's authority, mediated to us through the authority of the church's officers.

The structure of authority in the church is more complex than can possibly be summarized in this paper--even in outline form.14 But we can summarize its most prominent features which are of concern for our discussion. Of central concern will be the nature of church authority. It is primarily a teaching authority. This is because it is an extension of Christ's authority over the church, and of the Father's authority over the Son. The Son "learned obedience" to the Father (Heb. 5:8), and Jesus did not speak on His own authority, but on the Father's (John 14:10; cf. John 5:19-47; 8:28; 14-17). Therefore Christ commissioned His disciples on His own Father-given authority to make disciples by baptizing (evangelizing) and teaching everything He commanded. (Matt. 28:18-20) Notice here that the authority to baptize is to be exercised "in the name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The name of God must be verbally pronounced in baptism, and provides the authority on which the church's evangelism and teaching should be carried out. The conclusion is that the teaching authority Christ gave to the church was His own teaching authority, which was itself the Father's teaching authority.

Christ appointed the apostles to exercise this teaching authority in the church. Through the apostles and the authority of the Spirit (given by the Father and Christ--John 14; 16:13) Christ would extend this teaching authority through their preaching and teaching (1 Thess. 2:13), the writing of the scriptures (Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 3:16), and the teaching function of the elders they would appoint (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; Tit. 1:5).

As a result the central function in the officers of the church is the exercise of teaching authority. "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching." (1 Tim. 5:17) They must be "able to teach." (1 Tim. 3:2) An elder "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Tit. 1:9) The church is edified by the use of all of the gifts given to it, but the central, primary, directing gift--which edifies by guiding the other gifts--is that of the exercise of teaching authority (1 Cor. 3; 12:28; 14; Eph. 4:11-16). Again, the pattern for the exercise of this authority is self-sacrifice (1 Cor. 9; 1 Thess. 2:1-12; 1 Pet. 5:3) and submission (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 1 Thess. 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 5:5).

The special offices of the church exercise the mature expression of the speaking and acting gifts of the church, in the members who excel in those gifts. The gifts of the general office of the member, then--including its teaching authority ("speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15))--are to be exercised in submission to the teaching authority of the special offices (and officers). (Eph. 4:7-16) Further, the general office has its own teaching authority, which is the substantive extension of the teaching authority of the elders. Some members are not fit for the teaching office, and not all in the church should think themselves to be teachers (even the function without the office), not all are teachers, and not many should become teachers, but all should seek to teach, by seeking to gain the necessary maturity in Christ to do so, and all should be teachers in time. (Jude, 2 Pet. 2, Tit. 1:10-16, 2 Tim. 3:8, 1 Tim. 1:3-7, 6:2-10, Rom. 12:3-8, 1 Cor. 12:29, James 3:1, 1 Cor. 12:31, 1 Tim. 3:1, 1 and 2 Tim. passim, Jer. 31:34, Heb. 5:12, Tit. 2:3-5) We should all "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom." (Col. 3:16) We are to do this "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17), which means we must do so in submission to His authority, and as an exercise of His authority. The teaching authority of the general office of a member of the church is a substantive extension of the teaching authority of the elders, and of Christ.

  1. Places and Relations within the Church

"The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, (Eph. 5:21) inferiors, (1 Pet. 2:17) or equals. (Rom. 12:10)"15 The authority of the church bears upon the members of the church in all of their relationships, both to those within the church and to those outside of it. There are many positions and relations of authority that are recognized in scripture, but their general organization appears to follow the primary institutions in society similar to the way Abraham Kuyper outlined them in his lectures on Calvinism: the state, the church, the family, the business, and the school.16

    1. Non-Familial Relations

It appears that the teaching authority of the church, however, does not extend into all of those authority relationships; specifically, neither the state nor the business is given the authority to teach God's word. Civil magistrates are appointed by God, and must heed God's word, but are not to teach God's word as a function of that civil office. They may teach it as any member of the church of Christ may, however, even while they exercise the functions of civil office. Slaves are to serve masters as unto the Lord, because their obedience is in fact to the Lord, yet the masters are not to instruct their slaves in regard to the word of God by virtue of their master-slave relation, but rather only by virtue of other relations which they maintain. The state and the business maintain authority structures appointed by God such that self-sacrifice and submission are still required, but the exercise of the teaching authority of the church--the substantive extension of it--does not seem to be present in their authority structures.

The case is more difficult to determine in regard to the school, because while fathers are to bring their children "up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord," (Eph. 6:4) and as such the authority of the school over children seems to be an extension of the authority of the parents, nevertheless, not all students are children. For example, some could be fathers. So, if the students are adults, the school might be considered to be an institution whose authority is separate from that of the family, but if the students are children, the school may be an institution whose authority is an extension of the family's authority. But this may call into question whether the term "school" applies to each of these institutions as if they are truly the same kind of institution.

    1. The Family

The case is clear in regard to the family, however. The relation between husband and wife contains the primary authority structure in the family, and the relation between parent and child contains the secondary authority structure in the family. Both of these structures exercise a teaching authority, and that teaching authority is the teaching authority of the church.17

      1. The Principle: The Husband's Teaching Authority Is the Exercise of His Authority as a Member of the Church

As members in the church, a husband bears responsibility to make the teaching authority of the church central to his own exercise of authority in his family, starting with his relation to his wife. He is obligated to "sanctify her by the washing of water with the word." (Eph. 5:26) There are other aspects of his authority which may not be part of the authority of the church,18 but his teaching authority is to be identified as the substantive extension of the authority of the church. This should be apparent merely from the fact that he is to use God's word to sanctify his wife. He must speak God's word to his wife, using it in all its functions, for her edification. By doing so he is at the very least doing what any believer as a member of the church--under the direction of the teaching authority of the elders--should do for any other member. And as we have seen, the teaching authority of the Father is extended through Christ, through His church, to the members who must submit to it.

      1. An Ecclesiastical Context: "Membership" and the Objection: But the Family Is Under Christ, Not Under the Church

Some might argue that this leaves open the possibility that the authority structure of the husband (and thereby the family) derives its teaching authority directly from the Lordship and teaching authority of Christ, and not as an extension of the teaching authority of the church. Perhaps this is why Paul uses the word "as" ("as Christ loved the church") rather than saying something like "as an expression and extension of the way that Christ loved the church." Perhaps the two exercises of authority are merely similar, and not identical. But this would ignore the plain fact that Paul is not speaking to the Ephesians merely as "saints" (1:1) in a context outside the church, but rather he is speaking to them as the church of God (2:19-20; 3:21; 4:11-16), and as a local congregation (Acts 19:9) and regional church (Acts 19:10). It is in the context of the life of the church that he addresses wives and husbands (5:22-33), parents and children (6:1-4), and slaves and masters (6:5-9). He addresses them as members of the church. The implication is that it is by virtue of their membership in the church that husbands are responsible to sanctify their wives by the washing of the water and the word. The teaching authority of the church governs the exercise of the teaching gifts of members, when they are teaching God's word. Thus we see that the husband's teaching authority must be exercised in submission to the teaching authority of the church, as exercised by the elders.

      1. A Line of Teaching Authority: "Extension" and the Objection: The Family's Authority Submits to The Church, But Is Not From The Church

But is the husband's teaching authority the same authority as that of the elders? It is, as an extension of it. This can be seen in the way that Ephesians traces a line of teaching authority from Christ down through the officers of the church, through the members of the church, into the marriage relationship. It is because Ephesians draws this line that we must say that the husband's authority is an extension of the authority of the elders.

        1. Seen in Terms about "Teaching"

The line is seen in the use of certain terms related to teaching authority: Ephesians teaches that every member must "speak" (4:15, 25, 29; 5:4; 5:12, 19, 20) the same "truth" (4:15, 21, 25; 5:9; 6:14) of God's "word" (1:13; 5:6; 6:17, 19) which is "taught" (4:21), "testified" (4:17) and "preached" (2:17; 3:8; 6:19) to them by the teaching officers (4:11) of the church, and which they "heard" (1:13; 3:2; 4:21), "learned" (4:20), and "believed" (1:13), in "faith" (1:15; 2:8; 3:12, 17; 4:5, 13; 6:16, 23), in submission to the authority of that teaching office, and on the authority of Christ ("name," 2:20) conveyed to them through that teaching office. In this context it appears that when Paul addresses the husband, telling him to wash his wife with the water and the "word," and that the wife must submit to this activity, that he is instructing husbands to exercise this teaching authority which is given to all members, and to exercise it over his wife's own exercise of that same authority as a member.

        1. Seen in the Authority of God's "Name"

          • Members Teach in the Authority of God's Name

This line of teaching authority is further emphasized by the association of God's name with God's authority. We remember that Christ commissioned His church on the basis of His own authority, which was the authority of the Father, to baptize/evangelize and teach as an exercise of the authority of God, because it was to be done in His "name." (Matt. 28:19-20) In Ephesians, we see that it is the members of Christ's body--and not only the special officers--that God "raised...up with Him and seated...with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:20; 2:6; cf. Col. 3:1-3), "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named" (Eph. 1:21; cf. Col. 2:10). It is on this authority, conveyed to them through the teaching officers of the church, that they ought to speak the truth to their neighbor as members of the body (4:25), so that it builds the other members up (4:29), and to "address one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" (5:19), just as the Colossians were to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Col. 3:16), for they were to do so "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 5:20, Col. 3:17). The fact that this teaching function which the members carry out toward one another is done "in the name of Christ" emphasizes that it is on His authority that they teach, as that authority is conveyed to them through the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers of the church.19

          • Therefore Fathers Teach in the Authority of God's Name

            • Generally: All Fathers in the World

It is significant in this connection to notice that Paul says in 3:14-15, "I bow my knees before the Father [patera], from whom every fatherhood [patria] in heaven and on earth is named."20 The term "fatherhood" (patria) can be translated "fatherhood," "family," "ancestry," "nation," or "people."21 In this context it cannot help but have subtle connotations of the male authority expressed by fathers in their families, because of the wordplay between patera and patria,22 yet because the context is not about family relations but rather about Paul's ministry to the Gentiles (ethne) (3:1, 6, 8), the primary sense of patria must be a reference to the different kinds of people-groups distinguished by virtue of their unique ancestries. The combination of the context (genderless people groups) and the wordplay (masculine-gendered) seems to indicate that these ancestral lines are conceived of in patriarchal terms, such that the unique line of ancestry which defines each people-group is that which can be traced through the male heads of households, the line of fathers through whom each people-group descended. The comparison, then, is between the fatherhood of God the Father over God the Son, and the fatherhood of human fathers over their human sons, and more broadly, over their families and descendants.

What sort of comparison is this, though? Did God the Son descend physically, or ontologically, from God the Father? No, from other passages we know that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and equally God; equally the being of the Father, and thus not ontologically descended from Him. It appears that the point of comparison in view is the authority of fatherhood. So what Paul is saying is that God's Father-authority over the Son is the source from which the authority human fathers have in their families is derived. It is because God "names" human fathers "fathers" in their families--God appoints fathers to their roles--and because of the fact that the name "Father" implies the authority the first person of the trinity has over the second person of the trinity, that human fathers have authority in their families.

            • Specially: Christian Fathers in the Church

Further, the authority which Paul has in mind which is exercised in the patria is not merely the authority of pagan Gentile fathers over their families, though it includes that. But further, some of those Gentile fathers whom Paul has in mind would become converts, because Christ would live in their hearts through faith, bringing the fullest comprehension and knowledge of the truth of Christ and God. The authority of some Gentile fathers would be a Christian authority, derived from the Father, through Paul's teaching. Even more, Gentile families would be converted through the leadership of their fathers. Listen to the passage; it is speaking about the conversion of Gentiles, and the conversion of Gentile families:

"To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles...so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory. For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every fatherhood/family/people in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith--that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Eph. 3:8-19)

These Christian Gentile fathers then will lead their families on the authority of the name of God the Father--not just under His authority, but with His authority. They have been named "fathers," with the name of the Father.

        1. Conclusion: The Line Cannot Be Denied

Having said by implication here that Christian Gentile fathers in Ephesus as well as the church at large will lead their families into the full knowledge of Christ and of God, and into all the blessings of God Himself, with the authority of the name of God, Paul need only now specify the manner and means by which Christian fathers should do so. And this is what he does. He specifies the nature of the spiritual, Christian leadership of fathers in their families first by drawing the line all the way from God the Father, through Christ and His Spirit (4:1-6), through the gifts Christ gives to the church (4:7-10), which are led by the teaching gifts (4:11), in order that all members may be equipped to do ministry themselves so that the whole body might be edified (4:12-14). The leading function among the ministry carried out by the members will be "speaking the truth in love" (4:15-16). This ministry of the word must be carried out by each individual within their own hearts and lives (4:17-24) as well as toward the other members of the church (4:25-32). But it is not merely an individual responsibility; it is also a corporate responsibility. As a corporate body, the members of the church must live in self-denial in love and holiness toward one another, evidencing mutual submission, letting the members' mutual ministry of the word, exercising the authority of the name of Christ, take the leading role. (5:1-21)

Finally, having drawn this line, Paul says that it is this same authoritative ministry of the word that all members must carry out within the church, which husbands as members of the church must extend to their wives, in the name of Christ. (5:22-33) Because the husband is doing so as a function of his being a member of the church, and because the teaching authority of the members is an extension of the teaching authority of the teaching elders, the husband's teaching authority is an extension of the teaching authority of the elders. As such it is the authority of God the Father. As with fathers in all families of the Gentiles, a Christian father has teaching authority in his own family because he has been "named" into such a position with the name-authority of God the Father. But he only exercises this teaching authority properly if he does it as an extension of the teaching authority of the church, and in the context of the church, as a member of the church. Gentile father-authority is only proper if it is Christian, and ecclesiastically-derived, father-authority.

It is on this basis that Paul exhorts the husbands to love their wives in the same manner as Christ loved the church. It is God's authority which comes to expression in marriage. Because the exercise of authority in the Godhead is one of self-sacrifice in love and holiness, such is the nature of its substantive extension in Christ for the church, in the elders for the members, and such it must be in husbands for their wives. Husbands must give themselves up for their wives, in order to sanctify them, first and foremost by cleansing them by the washing of water with the word.

Likewise, wives are called to submit to the teaching authority of their husbands "as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior." (Eph. 5:23) Paul is not merely drawing an analogy between the relation of Christ to His church and the relation of the husband to his wife, but he is saying that the husband's teaching authority is a substantive extension of the authority of Christ over His church.

        1. Seen in Other Aspects of the Relation of the Family and the Church

We could conclude here, but let us note some further support for the fact that the teaching authority of the family is subordinate to the teaching authority of the church. This can be seen in that children must obey their parents in the Lord (6:1-2), within the covenant community ("the land"), submitting to the "discipline and instruction of the Lord"--the teaching authority--which their fathers exercise (6:3). This is further why one's children--and one's whole family--must be baptized within the church, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; they are under the church's authority, within their family. And this is why weddings are performed by ministers. One's marriage and family are part of the church, if one is a member of the body of Christ. In addition, this is the basis of the other analogies drawn between the family and the church: Timothy (a minister, at that!) must not "rebuke" (with teaching authority) an older man harshly (out of respect for Timothy's own parents and their teaching authority) but encourage him as a father, treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, and younger women like sisters. (1 Tim. 5:1-2) In the garden, Adam's teaching authority over Eve his wife came by virtue of the fact that he was created first (1 Tim. 2:13-14). He began to exercise this authority by naming the animals. This authority structure is what continues in marriage today.23

  1. Implications for the Gender of the Teaching Eldership

The husband's teaching authority is the substantive extension of God the Father's teaching authority. This implies that it is wrong for a woman to exercise the teaching authority of the church over a man. For her to do so would be for her to militate against the exercise of that authority in the families that are part of the church, and thereby to subvert the whole authority structure, even that of the Father and the Son.24

This can be demonstrated quite simply. First, it should be apparent that if a woman attempts to exercise this teaching authority over the teaching authority of her own husband, she would not just be adding to, but would be reversing the authority structure that exists in their marriage. She may exhort her husband in view of her equal ultimacy as a human made in the image of God, being equally a member of the body of Christ, and do so with the authority of a member of the church, equal to her husband's authority as member of the church. It would appear that it is impossible otherwise for her to take part in the mutual edification which is to occur between members of the church, on the authority of Christ's name (Eph. 5:20, Col. 3:17), under which all members render mutual submission to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21). However, we must emphasize that while the husband and wife are equally to exercise this teaching authority given to the members of the church, yet the wife is to submit her exercise of it to her husband's exercise of his teaching authority, so that the priority of his authority as her husband is maintained.25 So it seems clear that the wife may teach her husband with authority, but to exercise this authority over the teaching authority of her husband is to no longer be in submission under his authority. It is rebellion.26

Some argue that women in the church need only submit to their husbands' teaching authority, but may freely exercise teaching authority over other men in the church. But this is equally a subversion of her own marriage, and of the other marriages in the church. This is the case in that if she exercises teaching authority over a man to whom she is not married, that man is just as much a man as is her husband, who is in authority over her.27 She treats the one man as if he must submit to her, and her own husband as if he need not. Yet by doing so, she calls the reason for her husband's authority over her into question. If she may exercise teaching authority over one man, then it seems she should be able to do so over her husband as well. But if she may not exercise teaching authority over her husband, she may not do so over any other man.

Some would reply that this still might allow single women to exercise teaching authority over men. But such is not the case. For any woman to exercise teaching authority over any man in the church calls into question the submission of other women to their husbands in the church. The wife is not allowed to exercise such teaching authority over her husband, so why may the unmarried woman exercise teaching authority over that wife's husband? Such a situation would call not only the wife's submission into question, but the husband's leadership as well. The married woman could not help feeling that her husband's devotion to her was being undermined, and even his interests lured away toward the unmarried woman. The unmarried woman would be like a tempted and tempting Eve to the man. If he didn't recognize it, his jealous wife would.28

It appears certain, then, that women should not be permitted to exercise teaching authority over men in the church, for it subverts the authority structure of marriage within the church. But further, we must recognize that it is an offense against the trinity.29 It is rebellion against God. Paul states this simply in 1 Cor. 11:3: "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."30 To subvert the authority of a marriage in the church is to subvert the authority of Christ over the members of His church, which is itself the authority of the Father over Christ. The hard, fearful implication of this is that for a woman to exercise teaching authority over a man in the church, or for the church to ordain women into the office of the teaching elder, is to deny the economic trinity. It is beyond the pale of orthodoxy.31

It cannot be objected that the ontological equal ultimacy of men and women as created in the image of God, or recreated in the image of Christ and as members of His body, removes or destroys the economic ordering of priority in the authority structure of marriage. Such is not the case in the trinity, and therefore such is not the case in marriage, for the husband's authority is the substantive extension of the Father's authority over the Son.32

Neither can it be objected that any form of dialectical tension or contradiction between any kind of universality and particularity--whether between ontology and economy, or between authority and submission--can justify women being allowed to exercise teaching authority over men. Such tension and contradiction is not found in the trinity, and cannot be found in God's authority as it is expressed in marriage. As such the modern tendency to laud and promote man's freedom from the oppression of order and authority may not be seen as an insight into the text of scripture, or as a justification for the supposed "liberation" of women to exercise teaching authority over men in the church. Rather, it must be seen for what it is: utterly opposed to the structure of marriage, of the church, of biblical religion, and of the Godhead itself.33

In the final analysis, we may either ordain women to the office of teaching elder, or have the trinity. But we may not have both.34

  1. Conclusion

In conclusion, let us exalt God in all of His glory, and love Him for who He is. Let us love His wonderful authority, as it is graciously exercised on our behalf in Christ's sacrificial love for us His church, in His authoritative teaching which sanctifies us, extended to us all through the elders of His church, and through husbands to their wives. Our life is hidden with Christ in God, so let us set our minds on things above, not on earthly things, and eagerly await the day when Christ will present us all to Himself as His beloved bride, holy, and without blemish. By ordaining men alone to the office of teaching elder, we will keep marriage pure, the church will continue to be built up in Christ, and we will bring glory and honor to the true and living God.



B I B L I O G R A P H Y


Works Cited


Black, Tim. A Transcendental Analysis and Critique of Dooyeweerd’s Distinction between Naïve and Theoretical Thought. Term paper for AP 213: Principles of Christian Apologetics, under Dr. K. Scott Oliphint at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Spring 2001.

Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine of God. (Downers Grove, IL: 1993).

Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). (Also known as Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, or BDAG.)

Dooyeweerd, Herman, In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960).

Krabbendam, Henry. A Biblical Pattern of Preparation for Marriage. Second Edition. (Unpublished syllabus: 1996).

Krabbendam, Henry. Christian Doctrine: (An Outline). (Unpublished syllabus: 1995).

Krabbendam, Henry. Christian Ethics. (Unpublished syllabus: 1997).

Krabbendam, Henry. Christian Apologetics. (Unpublished syllabus: 1997).

Krabbendam, Henry. Sovereignty and Responsibility: The Pelagian-Augustinian Controversy in Philosophical and Global Perspective. Theologishces Lehr- und Studienmaterial 4. (Bonn: Verlag fur Kultur und Wissenschaft (Culture and Science Publ.), 2002). 173 pp. Central treatment of the non-Christian dialectic and the Trinitarian resolution of it. An elaboration of what could be called the central thrust of Van Til's thought: the relation of universality and particularity as rooted in the trinity.

Kuyper, Abraham. Calvinism: Six Stone Lectures. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931).

Piper, John, and Grudem, Wayne, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991).

Poythress, Vern S. God-Centered Biblical Interpretation. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1999).

Tipton, Lane. "____________." Westminster Theological Journal. (Not yet published: get bibliographic info when I can.)

Van Til, Cornelius. A Survey of Christian Epistemology. (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969).

Van Til, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978).

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.




Other Works Consulted


Brown, Mark R., ed. Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers. (Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993).

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960).

Clowney, Edmund. The Church. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987).

Kuiper, R. B. The Glorious Body of Christ: A Scriptural Appreciation of the One Holy Scripture. (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967).

Poythress, Vern S. Philosophy, Science, & the Sovereignty of God. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976).

Poythress, Vern S. Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987).

Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. Second ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994).

The Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. 2000 Edition. (Willow Grove, PA: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2000).

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).


1The conclusion of this paper then aims at excluding women from one activity in the church. As such this paper must be supplemented by a biblical understanding of the full extent and fulfilling nature of women's roles and activities in the family, church, and society. I do not mean to place unbiblical constraints on women and the good exercise of their gifts, but rather to place biblical constraints on a theological error and its practice in the church.

2In this section, I systematize the implications of Dooyeweerd's analysis and critique of the history of philosophy, and Van Til's and Krabbendam's appropriation and modification of it--as well as the latter two's positive theological systems and methods--in light of the development of trinitarian orthodoxy. Here, as well as throughout this paper, I depend heavily on Henry Krabbendam's Sovereignty and Responsibility; note especially pp. 87-111. I am also reflecting here to some extent on chapters 3, 5, and 7 in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I must disagree with some aspects of Vern Poythress' understanding of the structure of universality and particularity in the trinity (as expressed throughout his God-Centered Biblical Interpretation), in that he gives the relation of harmony between them an ontological status separate from them, and locates universality in the Father, particularity in the Son, and harmony in the Spirit, but I note that he is right to emphasize the importance of their harmonious relation. As such, I would argue that his doctrine of the trinity is more Augustinian than it is Calvinistic, Old Princetonian, and Van Tillian. (Confer with Bray (1993 134, 165-177); Lane Tipton's upcoming article on perichoresis in the Westminster Theological Journal.) The terms I employ in this section on the trinity, "universal(ity)," "particular(ity)," and "dialectic(al)" have been used for a long time in the history of philosophy. They are used most carefully by some of the greatest thinkers in that history, notably Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger. I am drawing on this usage, but am not myself using these terms to build a system which has a dialectical character, which is where the history of philosophy goes wrong. Rather, I am using them in a Christian, and trinitarian, manner, following the way Henry Krabbendam uses them in the works cited in the bibliography, and in his classes, as a way of clarifying and summarizing what Cornelius Van Til meant by his use of terms such as "absolute" and "personality," "logic" and "fact," and "rationalism" and "empiricism." (Necessity-contingency, one-many, universal-particular, etc.) I explain each of these terms more fully and analytically in my paper titled A Transcendental Analysis and Critique of Dooyeweerd’s Distinction between Naïve and Theoretical Thought, listed in the bibliography.

3I am beginning to like the phrases "structure of economy" and "economy of priority."

4Another way of saying this is that the Son is "under" the authority of the Father, and that the Spirit is "under" the authority of the Father and the Son, and that this is the particularity of being "under authority" in God. This is Krabbendam's terminology.

5You might notice here that I am saying that universality and particularity are related in both an ontological and an economic way. But if you compare this to my description of the two universality-particularity structures within the trinity (ontological and economic), you will see that here I am saying that there is an ontology in the structure of the economic trinity, in that authority and submission are ontologically equally ultimate with one another, and I am further saying that there is an economy within the ontological trinity, in that the being is first in order of priority, and the persons are second in order of priority. My reason for using the terms ontology and economy differently in this section is not to confuse the reader, but rather I am using the categories provided by the two main structures within the trinity (ontological and economic) as a means to make generalizations about the relation of universality and particularity within the Godhead. I am showing the interrelation of ontology and economy in order to make a generalization. The general structure which the ontological and economic structures within the trinity share in common is that of the relation-characteristics of universality and particularity. The intended result is that we see that my summary of the relation of universality and particularity within the Godhead is derived directly from an orthodox view of the trinity, and provides a truly appropriate and concise summary of what is of central importance in that doctrine: the nature and relations of universality and particularity. Their first relation of equal ultimacy is ontological, and their second relation of an order of priority is economic. These relations are of the essence of the nature of universality and particularity. So the definition of the nature of universality and particularity is that they sustain with one another these three relations of ontological equal ultimacy, economic priority of universality over particularity, and perfect harmony. This then is the precise opposite of the dialectical definition of universality and particularity, briefly described in the body of the paper. As such the dialectical perspective should be seen to be absolutely antitrinitarian.

6I say here that the relation is "implied" because I don't want to say that the relation has its own ontology or economy apart from the ontology of the being and persons, and the economy of the authority and submission, within God. The relation is part of what universality and particularity are in themselves. It is not separate from and subordinate to them, but rather it is them. If it was outside of them ontologically ("separate"), then there would be something within God which was other than the being and persons, and outside of the being and persons, which does not appear to be the teaching of scripture. The persons are all there is of the being of God; the being is all there is of what the persons are. Alternatively, if it was outside of or distinct from them economically ("subordinate"), then there would be something within God which was subordinate to submission, yet necessary for the operation of authority and submission. This also is contrary to the teaching of scripture; the Son of Himself submits, the Spirit of Himself submits; nothing else subordinate to them is needed for them to submit; else again there would seem to be something other than the authority and persons in the trinity. This is where my understanding of the trinity, following Van Til, I believe, is at odds with Poythress' view, who, we should note, also appears to claim dependence upon Van Til's doctrine of the trinity. I should mention that Poythress' view that the Spirit executes the harmony between the supposed (ontological-economic) universality of the Father and particularity of the Son (cf. God-Centered Biblical Interpretation, p. 37: "Through the Spirit, then, the persons of the Godhead dwell in one another. Each is present in the works of the others. Each shares in the attributes of the others. This relation of persons is termed coinherence, because each person 'inheres' in the other persons; each belongs to the others and is in the others." and p. 186: "God's self-consistent rationality is his faithfulness to himself and is therefore personal. It is the Father's faithfulness to the Son and the Son's faithfulness to the Father, through the Spirit.") is an attempt to meld the ontological and economic trinities into one structure, rather than allowing them to remain distinct (they are equally ultimate, and ontology remains primary!--thus they are distinct), and has the result of making the Spirit the ultimate guarantor not merely of harmony but of particularity within the Godhead, and within theology derived from the Godhead. That this is true can be seen in the following: The Spirit as means of harmony is considered subordinate in economy and ontology to the economy and ontology of the Father and Son whom He relates; as such He is particular relative to them in ontology as well as economy. Poythress' melding of the ontological and economic trinities into one is evident in the way the majority of his triads associate the order of Father-Son-Spirit with the order of universality-particularity-harmony and with the order of metaphysics-epistemology-ethics. Harmony is (wrongly) considered more particular than particularity, and ethics is (rightly) considered more particular than epistemology. The Spirit accomplishes (both ontologically and economically) the ethical activity of coinherence, or harmony, between the universality of the Father and the particularity of the Son. It is in this sense that "the Spirit searches the deep things of God." (1 Cor. 2:10, pp. 88-89) Thus for Poythress, it is that which is in the end subordinate--particularity--which is at the heart of the trinity. As such, Poythress' emphasis is on maintaining diversity and particularity in theology. This is a good emphasis, but his tendency to emphasize diversity and particularity at the expense of unity and universality--however unintentionally--will be the final failure of his system, and of other "multiperspectival" views which follow a similar course. The diversity will destroy the unity in his doctrine of the trinity. The final reason for this is that the relation of universality and particularity in the Godhead is implied or accomplished by universality and particularity in themselves, and is not accomplished by anything outside of themselves. Poythress, however, appears to say that universality and particularity do not hold together harmoniously on their own; rather, they must be held together by something outside of themselves. The subtle implication is that they are not truly harmonious with one another without the functioning of the Spirit. In the end such a view of the relation between the Father and the Son will allow tension and contradiction between universality and particularity to be seen as proper in the trinity, and therefore in theology. This dialectical theology then will be used by some to deny what has long been considered orthodox doctrine--and to be in accord with the orthodox doctrine of the trinity--or at least to hold orthodoxy "in tension" with contradictory doctrines. To bring this around to the issue at hand, I do not doubt that some intelligent followers of Poythress' multiperspectival method of hermeneutics, following its presently very minor and subtle dialectical implications, will use this theological system to justify ordaining women to the office of teaching elder. Of course, this is certainly not the intent of Dr. Poythress! (I want to make very clear that I truly regret having to make such a harsh critique of my professor's position, because I have a great amount of trust in and respect for Dr. Poythress, and consider the vast majority of what I have seen of his thought to be very orthodox. I am arguing that his perspective should be more consistently orthodox.) In summary, then, my understanding of the trinity maintains that there are two primary structures (ontological and economic) of universality and particularity in the trinity, and that in both structures, there is no third element that executes or accomplishes the relation between universality and particularity.

7Thus in regard to persons who are ontologically equally ultimate in "one and many" relationships, scripture teaches an ethics of mutual self-denial in love and holiness.

8Thus in regard to persons who are economically ordered in authority structures, scripture teaches an ethics of self-sacrifice and submission, in love and holiness.

9I hope the reader can perceive the reflections of Calvin, Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer, Kuyper, and Van Til here.

10This is Krabbendam's definition, expressed most fully in his Sovereignty and Responsibility.

11Cf. His statement that He is going away (John 14:1-4), but in a little while will be with you again (14:15-21; 25-28; 16:5-24), connected with the promise of the Spirit. Jesus is telling His disciples that He will no longer be physically present once He ascends bodily, but that nevertheless He will return to them through His Holy Spirit, which was to be poured out at Pentecost. Now, through the Spirit, Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. He is physically absent, but Spiritually present. Just as He said, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the very end of the age." (Matt. 28:20)

12Yet just as we may pray to the Son (Rom. 10:8-13; 2 Cor. 12:7-9) it remains possible to communicate with the Spirit--Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and even to pray to Him as part of our fellowship with Him. While usually we are praying THROUGH the Spirit TO the Father and the Son, yet because the Spirit is fully God (ontological equality) we must honor Him by praying to Him as well. Yet the consistent emphasis in scripture falls on praying to God the Father; the emphasis on praying to the Son is less prominent, and the emphasis on praying to the Spirit is hardly emphasized at all. The reason for scripture's emphasis is simple: we must respect the order of authority and function in the economic trinity. We exalt God the Father over the Son, and the Son over the Spirit.

13The trinity implies Christ's Lordship over the church, and if we truly exalt Christ's Lordship, we thereby exalt the Trinity. Orthodox trinitarianism, and an orthodox view of Christ's authority over His church, are inextricable from one another. This is the case as well with any and all expressions of Christ's authority within His church, as the rest of this paper attempts to show.

14Poythress' chapter in Piper and Grudem, "The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church," pp. 233-247, does a good job of bringing to light some of the complexity of the nature of the relations within the family and the church. Beyond merely highlighting this complexity, Poythress argues that because scripture draws an analogy between the family and the church, we should take male headship in the family to be a reason to maintain male headship in the church. As this paper tries to show, while that analogy is proper and beneficial to draw, it may not be able to defend against the criticism that it does not state the precise point on which the family and the church are identical, and as such, it could possibly be a false analogy. This paper attempts to prove that it is not a false analogy, because the family and the church are identical at the crucial point--the authority to which the wife must submit in the family is the substantive extension of the authority of the church, and as such, based on my further analogy of one woman with another in the church, and one man with another in the church, we get the implication that women's submission to the substantive extension of the church's teaching authority within marriage necessitates that only men exercise that same teaching authority over other men in the church. I remain uncertain, however, about what the point of identity is which is central to this further analogy between one man and another, and one woman and another. Someone could claim then that I have merely shifted the issue to a different location, and the false analogy to another topic, and thus have not proven anything in regard to the ordination of women. However, such an objection would be to ignore that I have proven the point of identity of the analogy between the family and the church. This is real progress toward the goal. As such all that remains to reach that goal is to discover and specify the point of identity which is central to this second analogy. My success in doing so with the first analogy is a clear indication that scripture makes the second analogy--and that it is not a false one!--and is indicative of the real prospect that someone will or already has succeeded in specifying the point of identity which I fail to discern in the second analogy. I look forward to their success.

15Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Q&A 64.

16Cf. Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Stone Lectures, 126, 151.

17For this reason, I might make another argument someday that children--even sons--should not exercise teaching authority over their parents in the church, so long as those children remain "children," meaning that they remain under their parents' parental authority.

18I am uncertain whether the leading function of teaching in the church over the function of ruling would imply that teaching would carry the same leading function in regard to all of the authority-functions in the husband-wife relation, thus bringing all of the authority in marriage under (or making it an expression of) the authority of the church.

19We should be explicit here: the authority of the members is not authority over other members, but shared authority under which every member must submit. So when one member teaches another with authority, what that member is doing is bringing to bear Christ's authority on the other member, not so that the other member will submit to the member who is teaching as if that teaching member is a superior or in authority over the other member, but rather so that the member who is taught will submit to Christ and the officers He has appointed over that member in His church. It is with this kind of shared authority, authority shared among equals, that a wife may teach her husband, for both equally hold the general office of a member of the church. But insofar as the husband and wife must fulfill their marital roles, they also must act not as equals in authority, but as unequals.

20Some translations translate the pasa patria as "the whole family," which would be a reference to the church, but this is incorrect. pasa with the article means "the whole," but without the article, as it is here, it means "every." As such, the reference must have in view the different people groups found throughout the earth, and throughout history, and not just the covenant community or body of the elect.

21The English Standard Version gives the translation "fatherhood" as an alternative to its preference, "family." Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker gives three definitions: "1) People linked over a relatively long period of time by line of descent to a common progenitor, family, clan, relationship." "2) A relatively large body of people existing as a totality at a given moment and linked through ancestry and sociopolitical interests, people, nation." "3) A division of a total people entity existing at a given moment, family." (p. 788)

22This word-play is subtle, but should not be ignored. Why else would Paul make the play on words? He could so easily have used the more common terms ethne or laos, and as a result would have made his reference to the "Father" less meaningful, but he chose to use the term patria. He makes the play on words because the role of God the Father in relation to the Son, and in originating the lines of descent of human families, and in naming them "fatherhoods," and naming fathers "fathers," is the basis of fathers' authority in their families.

23We might reflect further on this. Adam received God's revelation before Eve was created. In addition, Adam named the animals prior to Eve's creation, and he also called Eve "woman" prior to the fall, and named her "Eve" after the fall. As such, once God created Eve, Adam had the responsibility to tell Eve what God had revealed to him, and what authoritative declarations Adam had made regarding the animals, and even to tell her her gender and name. (She could not have seen Adam's telling her what her gender was, and what kind of human she was, as an insulting indication of any inferiority of her humanity, person, or intellect, but rather as a delightful blessing to accept from her loving husband, and as a communication in which he delighted as well, for at that time both she and he were made in the image of God, and were "very good." This communication especially would indicate the presence of an authority structure.) This authority structure existed in the first marriage. But did it exist in the second marriage? It did, because it was essential to Adam and Eve's marriage, and because it was Adam and Eve's responsibility to teach their children to have a marriage like theirs. We see the continuation of Adam's teaching authority in the relationship in that, when Eve ate from the Tree, it appears that she did not allow Adam's initial and continued verbal communication of God's revelation to take the lead--revelation they had both heard from God prior to the fall (Gen. 1:28-29)--but rather followed the serpent's word on the matter, and took it as her own interpretation of what the meaning of the fruit was. Then seemingly without a word, she gave the fruit to her husband, and he followed her without any obvious reference to God's revealed word on the matter. The fruit seemed to speak for itself, though in a non-verbal way. But God said Adam had "listened to the voice of your wife." (Gen. 3:17) Thus the leadership of God's word-revelation as administered through Adam to Eve was subverted in the original sin. Adam's teaching authority was to convey that revelation given after the creation of Eve just as much as the revelation given before her creation. Thus it was essential to their marriage, on the basis of Adam's being created first, but it was to continue not only because Adam heard God's word before Eve was created. The authority structure is further evident in that under the fall the curse upon Eve was that she would desire to exert control over her husband's leadership, and he would abuse his leadership by ruling harshly over her. (Gen. 3:16) This also seems to indicate that the authority role would continue beyond the communication of God's revelation given prior to the creation of Eve. Adam bore a son, Seth, who was "after his own image." (Gen. 5:3) This highlights that his son was to do the same things Adam did, presumably even in marriage. Thus we can see the "genesis" of Paul's reason for saying that a woman must submit to the teaching authority of her husband within the church. Adam was created first. And Adam was not deceived first, but rather Eve was deceived first and as a result, she sinned. The teaching authority, and teaching leadership, that Adam administered to Eve, is the same structure that is found today in marriages in the church.

24As such the direction of my argument is from male headship in marriage to male headship in the church. Some would like to argue that Paul's explicit requirement of male headship in the church is a sufficient reason for why women should not "teach or have authority over a man" in the church. But while this is true, it is so narrowly circular an argument that it may lose all cogency to some who hear it. This is one reason to argue in the direction I argue. But a further reason is that scripture appears to reason in the direction I do, if only because the institution of marriage existed before the officers of the New Testament church, as well as before the distinctly-so-called "elders" of the Old Testament. Beyond that consideration of the historical progression, Paul refers to the marital relations of Adam and Eve in 2 Timothy, and to marital relations in general in 1 Corinthians 11:3, as the basis of his prohibition. It is in this context that my argument from the "line of teaching authority" (laid out in Ephesians such that it extends into marriage) to the prohibition (of women from the teaching eldership) appears to be the direction and substance of the biblical reasoning. So then let us follow God's word as well as He enables us. "To the law and to the testimony!" : )

25This maintains the ontological equal ultimacy of the authority of the husband and wife, the economic priority of the authority of the husband over the wife, and the perfect harmony between their respective exercises of authority.

26Rebellion denies, perverts, and destroys the equal ultimacy, order of priority, and perfect harmony found within the marriage relationship. Of course, it must be emphasized that the same is true when authority is abused by a husband in a domineering, controlling, oppressive manner, or in an irresponsible, permissive, detached manner. This as well is a denial of the trinity on the part of the man. Our concern in the present context, however, is the reasoning for why women must not teach with authority over a man's teaching authority in the church, and not with the reasons for why men must not abuse their teaching authority.

27Here I employ the "second analogy" which was mentioned earlier. I am uncertain what the crucial point of identity between one man and another is in this analogy. I am beginning to think that the analogy turns on the potential that any given man-woman pair in the church could conceivably marry one another, given the right circumstances (e.g., death of a spouse.) If they can marry, then they must respect the nature of that potential marriage even if it does not occur. This is the same kind of reasoning we may use for why unmarried members of the church who are preparing for marriage must seek to determine whether they are capable of fulfilling the roles of marriage toward one another, by beginning to fulfill them during the period leading up to marriage, yet must at the same time refrain from carrying out the full extent of those roles: they are respecting the potential marriage which is their goal, and are respecting the institution of marriage in general. But this reasoning appears to remove the analogy one step from speaking about real marriages and relationships in the church, so it seems a bit unsatisfactory.

28In the interest of not boring the reader, I didn't make this same point about temptation and jealousy in the previous paragraph, but it would be equally appropriate there. A husband would be provoked to jealousy if his wife exercised teaching authority--something so similar to his own relation with her--over another man. His concern might not be so much that the other man is acting like a husband toward his wife--though the man might worry that his wife would begin to follow after the other man--but that his wife is ceasing to act like a wife. This brings to light, I think, a further consideration: even for single women to exercise teaching authority over single men in the church is for those women to show that they feel qualified to take the teaching leadership even in their romantic relationships with those men. As such they demonstrate themselves to be unsuitable as potential wives. The principle appears to remain that respect for the authority structure in marriage necessitates that women not exercise teaching authority over men in the church.

29Chapter 5 in Piper and Grudem is enlightening here: "Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16."

30The first clause lays out the general principle on which the following discussion is based: Christ the head of His church. The second clause specifies the implication for the practical issue at hand: women must submit to their husbands in the church, just as all members--including their husbands--must submit to Christ. The third clause ties the practical issue just mentioned directly to the ultimate ground of the whole discussion, thereby driving home the radical, gripping importance of the issue: women must submit to their husbands in the church, because Christ submits to the Father; to rebel against your husband is to rebel against God the Father.

31It could be further called atheism, paganism, and unbelief. We might note that it is not possible to reverse the order of the parts of just one level of the linear structure of authority described in scripture without serious ramifications. An attempt to turn one part of the structure upside-down is an attempt to stand the whole structure on its head. A woman who attempts to exercise the teaching authority of the church over a man is not only claiming to be in authority over him, but also over the elders, over Christ, and over God the Father Himself. She is, in effect, claiming to be God. In this context, the women's movement in some churches that has worshiped Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, in the place of God, and the attempts by some feminists to claim that God is female, take on an even more frightening cast. The social commentary of Isaiah 3:1-4:1 is telling: when husbands give up their leadership in the family and the church, infants and boys will rule over them--those who should be in submission to their mothers as well as their fathers--and the women seek to dominate the men by tempting them, and end up ruling over them, bringing shame upon the Lord, and bringing His judgment, as well as the final recognition by women again that they desire the husbands' leadership to return.

32As such it is wrong to say that Gal. 3:28 expresses an "egalitarian impulse" found in the New Testament which would allow women to hold the office of teaching elder in the church, or to exercise the church's teaching authority over a man. Gal. 3:28 may only be understood to be expressing that men and women are equally human in that they are made in the image of God, that they are equally being recreated in the image of Christ, and that they are equally members of the church and the body of Christ, and other such expressions of equal ultimacy which do not mitigate the economic order of priority found in the authority structure of marriage. We may even say that insofar as the wife is under the authority of her husband, she partakes in the exercise of that authority in a manner that is equally as ultimate as the manner in which her husband partakes in its exercise. By willingly submitting, she shares in the exercise of his authority by applying it to herself, and supporting her husband's leadership. Further, she even extends that authority toward their children, and exercises it over them. However, this equal ultimacy both in ontology and economy in no way reverses or eliminates the order of authority which exists between the husband and wife.

Whatever theological destinations may be said to find their origins in Paul's (and more broadly, scripture's) theological trajectories, when it comes to ordaining women to the office of teaching elder, or to reversing the structure of authority in marriage, Paul as well as Moses seems to say quite clearly, "Don't go there." Over against the egalitarian ideals of modern as well as post-modern man, scripture consistently exhorts us that true theology and faithful Christian living is always from the triune God, through the triune God as man is made in His image, and unto the trinitarian God in the end; His trinitarian glory is the origin, substance, and goal of truly biblical religion. In the final analysis, this is the reason for the male teaching eldership: to exalt God's glory in all creation.

33This tendency is modern philosophy's attempt to explain life without loving, worshiping, and glorifying the trinitarian God. Descartes and Leibniz emphasized the ordered, controlled aspects of the world, advocating a universalistic rationalism to the exclusion of particularity, and Hume emphasized the unpredictable, free, contingent, diverse aspects of the world, advocating a particularistic empiricism to the exclusion of universality. Kant attempted to synthesize these two initial strands of modern philosophy, by saying that the mind of man categorizes (organizes) the particular sense-impressions coming to it from the world of the "noumena" ("things-in-themselves") which supposedly had no categorical organization in themselves; that world was utterly free from any control or organization which man, nature, science, reason, and logic might impose upon it. But by saying this, Kant presupposed from the outset that the categories of human understanding could somehow categorize the "uncategorizable," which is clearly impossible. He believed that the universal categories and the particular noumena, and their respective worlds named "Nature" and "Freedom," simultaneously mutually presupposed each other (the categories can categorize the noumena) and mutually excluded each other (the noumena were "uncategorizable.") This is his dialectic. Hegel admitted that Kant's philosophy failed, and tried to synthesize the universal control of causality, logic, predication and science with the particularistic freedom of the things-in-themselves by saying that the progress of history, and especially, of the history of philosophy, could accomplish a synthesis of these two contradictory and polar opposites, by the progressive revelation of the (higher) particularistic ideal (spiritual, non-causal, eternal, uncategorizable, free, religious) world in the (lower) universalistic real (physical, causal, temporal, categorical, ordered, scientific) world. This is Hegel's dialectic. (Marx's dialectic is not very different.) But Heidegger's reply was that universality and particularity could not be "thought together" by Hegel or by anyone, because they are essentially opposed to one another, and because the harmony between them is only to be found at a depth which is beyond man's ability to fathom. He held that man's universalistic world of the objectifying and objectifiable constantly tries and fails to objectify and be objectified by the particularistic world of the nonobjectifiable and nonobjectifying. It is a constant failure. It is constant because universality and particularity presuppose one another's reality; they are nothing without the other. But it is a failure because Heidegger can neither accept nor perceive any harmony between them. He cannot conceive of a universality--an objectification--that does not destroy particularity. And he cannot conceive of a particularity--the non-objectifiable--that does not destroy universality. So he says that we have a name "Nothing" for that which is nothing--that we objectify the nonobjectifiable--and that this is an insoluble paradox. The universality and the particularity cannot coexist in harmony. As such Heidegger is only repeating Kant's Nature-Freedom dialectic, which has victimized modern philosophy. Neither has postmodern philosophy--and the postmodern hermeneutics some would employ in the service of Christ--liberated itself from the basic structure of Kant's Nature-Freedom dialectic. It too has been taken captive by modern unbelieving philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, according to their "basic principles" of the world, and is not a philosophy in accord with Christ. Even beyond the discussions of technical philosophy, the popular worldviews of our day have taken on this same general perspective; it is often in evidence when people promote "freedom" as an ideal in the modern day. People who do not love the trinity and the real harmony that obtains between freedom and order, authority and submission, unity and diversity within God, people who do not stand in awe of this in God, and worship Him for it, admitting the limitations of their own mind--and the greatness of God's mind--to grasp the heights and depths of His thoughts and ways, assume that freedom must be freedom from oppressive order, that freedom and order, freedom and authority, unity and diversity, ontological equality and economic order, must be inherently opposed to one another, and that they cannot exist in harmony. As such they have taken the lie given to them by modern thought, and have denied the trinity. They have not worshiped and glorified the true God as God, and as their God. They are worshiping a different god. They are believing the lie of the Serpent, that it is better to rebel against God's word and its authority expressed through the leadership of husbands in their families, and men in the eldership, and to make up their own--but actually the Serpent's--interpretation of the fruit set before them, than it is to submit to God, and worship Him alone. The freedom they seek, they will not find, until they find the freedom in Christ that comes by submitting to His authority.

34A further argument should be made by someone to the effect that the deacons' role of enabling the teaching officers to carry out their dedication to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:1-7) is the basis for the exclusion of women from the diaconate, as well. Apparently as deacons, Stephen and Philip exercised teaching authority over men (Acts 6-9). In what way were they thereby serving tables? Perhaps by being "minesweeper" preachers of sorts for the ministry of the apostles among the Jews (Stephen) and Gentiles (Philip), supporting and enabling the apostles' work. It may not be that the deacons are not to teach, but rather that they are to enable the teaching ministry of the teaching officers in whatever ways are necessary. At times they will then extend the teaching authority of the apostles (Acts 6-9) or the elders (1 Tim. 3:10, 13), as part of their "service." In this capacity, they must be able to exercise that teaching authority over husbands, and men, in the church, without vitiating the authority structure of the marriage relationship. As such, deacons must be men. This brings a further consideration to light: both elders and deacons must be careful to respect the authority which men have in the marriage relationship when they teach a man's wife. If at all possible within the constraints of God's word, they should encourage her to submit to his leadership, and avoid instructing her to go against his leadership, even if he is an unbeliever. Perhaps without a word she will win him over, if he is an unbeliever. Whether or not he is a believer, if the officers have a disagreement with either the husband or the wife, they should take up their disagreements with the husband first, before taking them up with his wife, so as not to put her in a difficult situation, and so as to respect the husband's authority.