Diversity and complementarity within the priesthood. While each Christian is in every way a priest unto God, there is nevertheless diversity and complementarity

avoid, however, focusing on the individual, for Protestants are prone to

individualize the text in a way that blunts or even denies its corporate emphasis.

Making no distinction in class among Christian priests, Peter teaches that regenerate Christian men, women, boys, and girls are all priests, “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5), who together with other living stones and priests are being built up collectively as “a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5). A biblical position accounts for the priesthood of each individual Christian while also upholding the corporate nature of the priesthood of the church.

Diversity and complementarity within the priesthood. While each Christian

church as gifts for the purpose of “building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12) for “the common good” (1 Cor 12:6). Every priest is endowed with at least one spiritual gift, for as Peter writes, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Pet 4:10).

God’s “varied grace” has to do with the “varieties of gifts” of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4) detailed in Scripture (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:8-10; 28- 30; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:10-11), and these differing spiritual gifts are distributed to the members of the priesthood.

Emphasis is placed on the uniqueness of the Spirit’s gifting for specific individuals: the Spirit “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11). Thus, because of the diversity of gifts distributed among the individuals of the priesthood, each member of the church is dependent upon the others. In this way, the gifts of one priest complement the gifts of the others so that “when each part is working

properly, [it] makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph 4:16).

The second point of diversity and complementarity among those in the new covenant priesthood is that of office. Among the members of the priesthood, the two offices of pastorate and diaconate function.

The office of pastor carries with it the

Eph 4:8, 11 in light of Ps 68:8. When understood in connection to Num 8:6, 16-19; 18:6 and Isa 66:20-21, both Eph 4:8, 11 and Ps 68:8 collectively teach that the members of the new covenant priesthood represent a new order of “Levitical” priests—now comprised of people from all nations, no longer only from the tribe of Levi—who are granted gifts and are given as gifts to the church for the purpose of carrying out the ministry of the church and for building up the body of Christ.

51 Schreiner affirms the following idea:

It is also implied that each believer has received at least one spiritual gift, for Peter addressed his words to “each one’ (hekastos). The notion that God has granted charismatic gifts to each believer is also Pauline (1 Cor 12:7). Even though every believer possesses at least one gift, the gifts are not necessarily the same. God’s grace manifests itself “in its various forms,” so that the diversity of gifts reveals the multifaceted character of God’s grace. (Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 214)

52 These passages are commonly cited in detailing the variety of spiritual gifts. See Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 936-37; O’Brien, Letter to the Ephesians, 298; Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 250; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 538-50.

53 The office of apostle is acknowledged here as a biblical office, but it is asserted that apostleship was an office that ceased during the time of the early church after the death of the last apostle since “no person today can meet the stated requirements for apostleship—being with Jesus from the outset of his three-year ministry and an eyewitness of his resurrection.” Allison, Sojourners and Stranger, 210.

With regard to the pastorate, the New Testament uses three synonymous terms interchangeably to speak of the same office: elder (πρεσβύτερος, Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1), bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7), and pastor (ποιμήν, Eph 4:11; cf. John 10:11;

responsibilities of leadership, teaching, shepherding, and intercession. While other members of the congregation may engage (or assist) in these ministries in some way, the pastors of the congregation bear the primary responsibility and burden to make certain that they are carried out faithfully. The second office in the church, the diaconate, is appointed to the office as exemplary servants of the church who have demonstrated consistent devotion to meeting all the other ministry needs of the church that are not the responsibility of the pastors. Certain derived authority (from God) is entrusted to the pastors—and to some degree, the deacons (under the leadership of the pastors)—to govern the overall body of the congregation.

And yet, whereas some throughout church history have sought to interject a hardline distinction between the clergy and the laity, many in the early church and throughout history have affirmed that while God has designed the church with its offices of pastor and deacon, there is nevertheless no distinction in class among those in the new covenant priesthood.

While there are

Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4). In Titus 1:5-7, the terms “elder” and “bishop” are applied to the same office, and in 1 Peter 5, the same church leaders are called “elders” (1 Pet 5:1), “pastors” (1 Pet 5:2), and

“bishops” (1 Pet 5:2). In Acts 20:17, Paul sends for the elders (πρεσβυτερους) of the church in Ephesus to come to him. In the immediate context of Paul’s address, Paul tells the elders in Acts 20:28 to “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (επισκοπους), to shepherd (ποιμαινειν) the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” While the New Testament affirms only one teaching office in the church, it also affirms one office of service, the deacon (διάκονος, 1 Tim 3:12; cf. Acts 6:1-7; Rom 16:1-2). Nathan A. Finn, “The Rule of Elders: The

Presbyterian Angle of Church Leadership,” Those Who Must Give an Account, ed. Hammett and Merkle, 214-17.

Allison affirms the interchangeability of these three New Testament words in relation to the office of elder/bishop/pastor:

The New Testament uses several words to refer to this office. Most commonly, ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) and πρεσβυτερους (presbuteros) are used; these words are usually translated, respectively, bishop or overseer, and elder or presbyter. Another word, ποιμήν (poimen), is found less frequently even though its translation, pastor, is a common English word used in churches to refer to this office. Importantly for our discussion, the New Testament uses these words

interchangeably. (Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 211-12)

54 This understanding of the offices of pastor and deacon is largely dependent on the work of Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 211-47.

55 Cyril Eastwood has traced the development of the theme of priesthood throughout church history, beginning with the early church and concluding with the contemporary church. He gives particular attention to the question of how priesthood has been understood in relation to the whole church versus the clergy. He argues that the early church affirmed a strong doctrine of the priesthood of every believer.

However, beginning primarily with Cyprian, the church began acknowledging a greater distinction in class between the clergy and laity. This distinction remained in place throughout the Middle Ages until some began to oppose the notion during the time of the Reformation, arguing once again for a more biblical understanding of the priesthood of every believer. Cyril Eastwood, The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful:

An Investigation of the Doctrine from Biblical Times to the Reformation (London: Epworth Press, 1963);

different roles and responsibilities among the priesthood, each priest possesses the same priestly identity and dignity as the next, regardless of whether or not he holds an office within the church.

The third point of diversity and complementarity among those in the new covenant priesthood is that of gender roles. God has assigned different and

complementary roles to men and women. In short, the primary burden of spiritual leadership is assigned to qualified men in the sphere of the church (1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:2;

4:11-13; 5:17; Titus 1:9; 2:7-8).

In the local church, the office of pastor is reserved for qualified males as women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2:11-15). Paul grounds his instruction in two points: (1) the order of creation:

“Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13); and (2) the sin of Eve: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:14).

Moreover, the reasoning for this arrangement stems from the theological understanding

Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers: An Examination of the Doctrine from the Reformation to the Present Day (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1960).

56 This pattern of gender diversity and complementarity extends not only to the male/female relationship in the church but also to the male/female relationship in the home (Eph 5:22-6:4; Col 3:18-21;

1 Pet 3:1-17). The home features a specific familial ordering in which the husbands are the heads of their wives, whom they are called to love as Christ loves the church, and wives are to respect and be subject to their husbands as the church respects and submits to Christ. This arrangement is designed with the intent of ultimately resembling the Christ-church mystery. Further, children are expected to obey their parents. In each of these familial relationships, care is to be given that authority is not exercised in a dishonorable, harsh, uncaring, or provoking sort of way. Mutual love and respect are to be extended to every member of the family.

The ecclesial gender relationship is connected with the design of the familial gender relationship. That is, “Just as husbands and fathers ought to exercise godly leadership in their human families, so wise, mature men ought to be appointed as fatherly leaders in the church.” Vern Sheridan Poythress, “The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 233. Furthermore, women are not

permitted to be pastors of churches “because such a role would not harmonize with the general relationship between men and women in marriage” (238). As a result, “the differences between men and women within the context of marriage and family carry over into differences in roles that men and women may assume within the church.” In sum, “Male leadership in the family means male leadership in the church” (238).

57 For an explanation of how Paul’s teaching roots this gender distinction in creation, see George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: W. B.

Eerdmans, 1992), 140-44.

of authority and submission within the Trinitarian relationship;

Paul argues, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 13).

This Complementarian viewpoint affirms that every Christian, whether male or female, is gifted as a priest by the Holy Spirit and bears great responsibility for the

58 Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware have popularized a view of eternal subordination among the members of the Trinity, affirming ontological equality and functional or economic subordination. Some have criticized their position, concluding that such a view entails the heresy of ontological

subordinationism or Arianism. See Millard J. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009); Kevin Giles, “The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 334-52. Grudem and Ware deny these charges and contend that their views are in keeping with orthodoxy, upholding the Son’s eternal deity and denying his inferiority to the Father. Schreiner asserts that believing in a Trinitarian hierarchy “would only be a heresy if one asserted that there was an ontological difference (a difference in nature or being) between Father and Son.

The point is not that the Son is essentially inferior to the Father. Rather, the Son willingly submits himself to the Father’s authority. The difference between the members of the Trinity is a functional one, not an essential one.” Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,”

in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Piper and Grudem, 120. Schreiner insists further that because 1 Cor 11:3 refers to “Christ” and not to the “Son” the verse is referring to “Jesus’ earthly ministry, to the incarnation, and not to his eternal sonship as the second person of the Trinity,” such that the verse is in reference to “Christ’s work as a human, so that the focus is on his redemptive work instead of the inner life of the Trinity.” Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers Drove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 226-27. And yet, Schreiner notes that the “economic Trinity reflects what is true of the persons of the Trinity in their personal relations to one another. The Father is always the Father, the Son is always the Son and the Spirit is always the Spirit. The Father sends, the Son willingly goes and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son” (227). For Grudem’s and Ware’s teachings on the topic, see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 248-56; Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 71-85.

59 As the text relates to gender roles, Schreiner asserts that the “headship of the Father over the Son (the functional submission of the Son) grounds the relationship between men and women. . . . We have an analogy between the Trinity and male-female relationships . . . Jesus is the God-Man, and as the eternal Son of God he shares every attribute that belongs to the Father. Yet, as the eternal Son, he voluntarily and gladly submits to the Father.” Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, 227. Though the analogy is not an exact parallel, the text affirms the equality of persons both in the Trinitarian relationships and the male-female

relationship and the difference of role in the Trinitarian relationships and in the male-female relationship (226-28).

The intended meaning of the term κεφαλή (head) has been debated among Complementarians and Egalitarians. Some defend the translation “source,” others suggest “pre-eminent” or “foremost,” and others affirm “authority.” For works supporting the view that κεφαλή means “source,” see Richard S.

Cervin, “Does Kephalé Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” TJ 10, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 85-112; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: W. B.

Eerdmans, 1987), 502-505; Berkeley Mickelsen and Alvera Mickelsen, “What Does Kephalé Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1986), 97-110; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Appendix III: The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source,’” in Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home, ed. Gretchen Gaebelein Hull (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 267-83. In favor of “pre-iminent” or “foremost,” see Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 811-22. For the view that κεφαλή should be understood as

“authority,” see Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, 222-26; Wayne A. Grudem, “Does κεφαλή Mean ‘Source’ or

‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature?” A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TJ 6, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 38-59;

Grudem, “Appendix 1: The Meaning of κεφαλή (“Head”): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Piper and Grudem, 424-76.

building up of the church. While men and women exercise their priesthood in differing and complementary ways, they have both been set apart as new covenant priests to God.

Though the Old Testament places significant emphasis on the male’s role as priest, with the new covenant, the priestly status of women is accentuated and brought into focus, perhaps in a way unlike previous eras of redemptive history. This covenantal shift may be observed from several points.

First, Jesus demonstrates this new covenant shift as he opposes the sexism of his day. Jesus modeled what it is to show honor, love, and respect for women. While numerous examples of this exist throughout the Gospels (Luke 7:36-50; 8:2-3; 10:38-42;

John 7:53-8:11; 11:5), none is clearer than Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman when he speaks with her at the well (John 4:1-45). After Jesus speaks and deals kindly with the woman, the text records that his disciples “marveled that he was talking with a woman” (John 4:27). The disciples’ “unvoiced surprise that he was talking with a Samaritan woman reflects the prejudices of the day.”

Jesus opposed such a negative view of women and instead upheld their dignity.

This is further illustrated in Jesus’

60 The debate between proponents of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism has the potential to be a thorny one, particularly in a culture where radical feminism regards any form of

Complementarianism, patriarchy, or view of male headship as an antiquated, offensive, oppressive, and (to some) abusive affront against women, a view they correlate with misogyny and male chauvinism. Care must be given, on the one hand, to articulate and live out a biblical ethic that upholds the dignity of women in the home, church, and society and, on the other hand, to resist the cultural pressure to disregard the clear biblical teaching regarding differing gender roles. Much has been written on the topic; some of the more helpful resources available, which articulate an evangelical Complementarian view of gender roles, are:

Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004, 2012); John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds.,

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 223-40. For resources in favor of Egalitarianism, see John G. Stackhouse Jr., Partners in Christ: A Conservative Case for Egalitarianism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2015); Stackhouse, Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender, Acacia Studies in Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids:

Baker Academic, 2005); John Temple Bristow, What Paull Really Said About Women: An Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988);

Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992); Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee, eds., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

61 Carson, The Gospel according to John, 227.

62 Illustrating the common sexist attitude tomorrow women of the day, Carson writes,

Some (though by no means all) Jewish thought held that for a rabbi to talk much with a woman, even his own wife, was at best a waste of time and at worst a diversion from the study of Torah, and

ministry as he chooses to include women in his teaching audiences, involving them in his teaching illustrations, and applying his teaching to them (Matt 10:34ff.; 13:33; 22:1-2;

24:41; Luke 15:8-10). Jesus called on Martha to cease from her labors in serving those in her household so that she might join Mary and the others who “sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching” (Luke 10:39). Again, in a counter-cultural act, Jesus allows women to touch him as he heals them from their ailments (Mark 5:25-34; Luke 13:10- 17).

In another striking event, following his resurrection, Jesus chooses to appear first to a woman—Mary Magdalene—rather than to men.

Second, the remainder of the New Testament agrees with Jesus’ positive views of women and demonstrates how, with the new covenant, the priestly role of women is to be valued. While maintaining diversity among the genders (Eph 5:22-33), Paul affirmed

therefore potentially a great evil that could lead to Gehenna, hell (Pirke Aboth 1:5). Some rabbis went so far as to suggest that to provide their daughters with a knowledge of the Torah was as inappropriate as to teach them lechery, i.e. to sell them into prostitution (Mishnah Sotah 3:4; the same passage also provides the contrary view). Add to this the fact that this woman was a Samaritan (cf. notes on v. 9), and the disciples’ surprise is understandable. Jesus himself was not hostage to the sexism of his day. (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 227)

63 In these texts, Jesus touches and heals one woman on the Sabbath and another woman who had been menstruating for an extended period of time. In both occasions, the old covenant regulations concerning menstruation and touching someone who is menstruating, (Lev 15:19-27) and working on the Sabbath give way to a new covenant approach to showing love and compassion to women in need. James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, PNTC (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2002), 163-66; I.

Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: W. B.

Eerdmans, 1978), 556-59.

64 Borchert comments on this event:

It is intriguing, indeed, that John opens his appearance accounts not with well-known male disciples but with a woman at the tomb. Yet that is the point of the envelope. The evangelist wrapped the Mary Magdalene story around Peter and the beloved disciple and thus creatively focused on bringing the two stories together in such a way that he could highlight two people, the beloved disciple and Mary (a man and a woman). The beloved disciple believed without an appearance, and Mary Magdalene recognized the Lord . . . when her name was called (20:16). Thus, in his creative way the evangelist has continued to highlight the presence of both men and women in the company of Jesus.

(Borchert, John 12-21, 296) Carson adds,

It is worth recalling that the Synoptists, who mention several women at the tomb, agree in naming Mary Magdalene first. This probably reflects the early church’s memory of the fact that she was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus. Her witness was not as greatly utilized in the primitive preaching as was that of, say, Peter, doubtless owing to the fact that a woman’s evidence was not normally admissible in court (e.g. Mishnah Rosh ha-Shanah 1:8). The Evangelists have nevertheless taken pains to honour her, and thoughtful Christians will remember that God delights to choose what the world deems foolish to shame the wise, so that no-one may boast before him (cf. 1 Cor. 1:27-29).

(Carson, The Gospel According to John, 636)