Women Serving the Church as Deacons

Since I have recently moved to Pittsburgh to take classes at RPTS in the fall I have enjoyed having discussions about the RPCNAs continuing practice of qualified women being deacons in the church. Out of these discussions, and events from the 2015 Synod, I have been able to improve my arguments. Since I have already written, and revisited, on this topic before in a previous post, I thought it would be best to share the following additional points on the topic.

----------------

One comment about my first post was a helpful question about my fourth point of exegetical arguments in favor of women serving the church as Deacons. The question was, if it is possible that Paul's words about Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 are an example of Semitic parallelism? For the sake of having the translation in front of us let us look once again at Dr. Strimple's translation of Romans 16:1-2:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever manner she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.

Let us consider the definition of Semitic parallelism, so that we can understand the question. According to Louis Berkhof, in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation (a free pdf is available here), on pages 63-64 parallelism is when "in two lines or members of the same period, thing for the most part answer to things, and words to words." Parallelism can be further divided in three or four different groups, depending on who is counting. The most likely type of parallelism being asked about in Romans 16:1-2 is synonymous parallelism, which is one idea repeated in different words. Two further examples of this type of parallelism are synonymous parallelism between similar ideas (Ps. 24:2; Job 6:5); or synonymous parallelism that demonstrates an identity between words (Prov. 6:2; Ps. 93:3).

The question is asking if Paul is repeating the same thought about Phoebe in Romans 16:2 ("... she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.") as he already said in Romans 16:1 ("who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea ...")? The implication of this question is, Paul may simply only writing in verse 1 about Phoebe being a servant, as opposed to a deacon, and repeats the idea of Phoebe's service in verse 2.

However, let us consider another writing of Paul to help us understand the relationship between Romans 16:1 and 16:2. In Paul's letter to the churches in the region of Galatia, Paul writes in 5:25:

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

Is Paul's language about  "... keep in step with the Spirit ..." repeating the same idea as "... live by the Spirit"? No. In verse 25, Paul starts with a indicative ("If we live by the Spirit ...") and then gives the churches an imperative ("... let us also keep in step with the Spirit."). The ideas are different. There is a relationship between both of Paul's ideas though. The imperative can only happen if the indicative is true. We can only keep in step with the Spirit if we live in the Spirit. It is important to note that the word "also" highlights that the thought Paul is communicating is a thought of progression, not a thought of repetition.

In Romans, likewise, Phoebe's office in the church of Cenchrea of deacon and then her service to many in that church demonstrates a progression of thought about Phoebe. In Romans, Paul uses the word "also" again like he did in the letter to the churches of Galatia. Unfortunately, right now, I do not know Greek, so please feel free to provide feedback if this argument does not reflect how Greek works.

Since this question focuses on the fourth exegetical argument, it should be noted that this argument builds on the previous three arguments being true. That is not to say that Dr. Strimple's fourth argument is built on a house of straw, but I do believe that the argument for this passage being a Semitic parallelism could lose sight of the context of the letter to the Romans. While Paul's mind is Semitic, Paul's audience would be primarily Greek. I am sure the Greek audience was familiar with the Psalms, etc. as a part of their new faith, but I do wonder how probable it is that Paul would be using Hebrew poetry to address a Greek audience in a letter addressed to the church in Rome?

----------------

As I understand Dr. Strimple's argument, it is only making the following point: Paul calls Phoebe a deacon of the church, therefore we should allow qualified women to also serve in the church. This simple point changes the whole nature of the discussion. The question I run into usually is: Ought women to be deacons? However, if the argument that Paul recognizes Phoebe as a office-holder in Romans 16:1-2 is valid, the actual question changes. The question ought to be: how does a Deacon differ from an Elder in the church?

That's the big question for the RPCNA. Is a Deacon a stepping stone to becoming an Elder, or is a Deacon a distinctly different office? It is only when the two offices are not distinct that the issue of Phoebe can lead to women pastors. An example of how these two offices can become fuzzy is when we believe that the men chosen in Acts 6 were Deacons.

----------------

The one passage we need to consider is 1 Timothy 3:1-13 because this passage explains the qualifications for both Overseers and Deacons. The passage can further be divided into two lists; verses 1-7, and 8-13. A parallel list for the office of Overseers, but called Elders, is addressed to Titus and can be found in Titus 1:5-16. Paul is giving these lists of qualifications to the second generation of leaders in the church after Christ's first coming. This is an important point: Paul is addressing us in these verses, he is passing on the instructions about how the church ought to function after Christ's first coming and before His second coming. In verse 1 and verse 8 we should notice how Paul introduces each list. Verse 1 says:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

Verse 8 says:

 Deacons likewise ...

There are similarities between the qualifications for both offices, but there are also some differences. Paul lists 15 qualifications, and reasons for some of those qualifications, for anyone who desires the office of Overseer. Paul lists 11 qualifications for those desiring to be Deacons.

Here are the 15 qualifications for Overseers:

1. Must be above reproach (v. 2)
2. The husband of one wife (v. 2)
3. Sober-minded (v. 2)
4. Self-controlled (v. 2)
5. Respectable (v. 2)
6. Hospitable (v. 2)
7. Able to teach (v. 2)
8. Not a drunkard (v. 3)
9. Not violent but gentle (v. 3)
10. Not quarrelsome (v. 3)
11. Not a lover of money (v. 3)
12. He must manage his own household well (v. 4)
13. With all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? (vv. 4-5)
14. He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil (v. 6)
15. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (v. 7)

Here are the 11 qualifications for Deacons:

1. Must be dignified (v. 8)
2. Not double-tongued (v. 8)
3. Not addicted to much wine (v. 8)
4. Not greedy for dishonest gain (v. 8)
5. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience (v. 9)
6. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless (v. 10)
7. Their wives likewise must be dignified (v. 11)
8. Not slanderers (v. 11)
9. But sober-minded (v. 11)
10. Faithful in all things (v. 11)
11. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (vv. 12-13)

I do want to consider two points of difference between these lists. First, let us consider verse 11. Verse 11 lists four qualifications; however, unlike the list for Elders, this list is directed to the wives of deacons. The translation of verse 11 as directed towards wives, as opposed to women, is an instance of the translation committee choosing to add their interpretation to Paul's word beyond the interpretation that is required when translating a text into another language. The word, gunaikas, may mean either "women" or "wives".

Dr. Strimple's minority report makes it clear that the majority of the OPC committee wanted to consider the translation choice to be "an exegetical stand-off" but Dr. Strimple makes an argument that this conclusion is reached too quickly and shows why Paul's use of language must mean that verse 11 is directed to women without reference to their marital status. One of Dr. Strimple's arguments is that, while English translations either use an article ("the") or a possessive pronoun ("their"), the use of either an article or pronoun is not justified by the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:11 in any known manuscripts.

Another issue to consider is, why are women even being considered by Paul in verse 11, with reference to Deacons, but Paul does not consider traits of a Elder's wife? Many of the qualifications directed towards women in verse 11 are repeated earlier with respect towards the qualifications for Elder, but they are not directed towards a specific gender. I know that Elder's wives share, in as much, of the ministry as Deacon's wives merely on the level of providing support and encouragement behind closed doors.

Therefore, I agree with Dr. Strimple when he says in the New Horizons article,

The [majority] Committee suggests that the wives of the deacons had a part in the work of their husbands in a way in which the wives of the overseers did not.... [This] concedes the crucial point which I believe must be emphasized concerning the important difference between the office of overseer and the office of deacon, and how the difference makes it appropriate that the office of deacon (but not the office of elder) be open to qualified women as well as to qualified men!

While I do agree with Dr. Strimple's interpretation of 1 Tim. 8-12 as referring to men and women Deacons, I do disagree with Dr. Strimple's particular outline of Paul's thought. Dr. Strimple says that the structure of the passage can be broken up into three categories of Deacons:

1. The teaching in verses 8-10 is directed towards both male and female Deacons
2. Verse 11 is particular to female Deacons
3. Verse 12 is particular to male Deacons

My own outline of verses 11-12 is that these verses are using the analogy of how family life in a home ought to look for the purpose of teaching both candidates and voters in a congregation what a Deacon should look like based on what situation God has placed them in at a current point in a candidate's life. The advantage that this interpretation has is that it allows single people to still apply Paul's teaching to their situation in their lives—if they are running for a church office, and it does not limit the teaching in verse 11 to only females and verse 12 for male candidates for office. See the Report of the Committee to Respond to Communication #01-3 in RPCNA Synod minutes 2002 for more information.

The second point of difference between both lists is verse 2; particularly that Elders must be able to teach. Paul's instruction in 1 Tim. 3:2 comes after Paul's teaching in 1 Tim. 2:12 about how are not women to teach men. The context of Paul's letter is important to remember—an older pastor passing on instruction to a younger pastor about qualifications for two church offices in the following years after Paul dies. Paul does not list a qualification for a Deacon as being able to teach.

Paul is not addressing Timothy about home life or general schooling methods. If Paul were addressing general schooling concerns, outside of the church, I must ask the question why Paul commends Timothy for the faith that both Timothy's grandmother and mother had if they did not actually teach their faith to young Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5)?

The office of Deacon does involve teaching, but it does not confer the same teaching responsibilities as of the office of Elder. If a Deacon preaches on a Lord's Day without being, at least, under the care of presbytery to teach I would object to the sermon, because Paul teaches that preaching responsibilities only are a part of the office of Elder. It would not matter if the Deacon were male or female. The person is "out of their bounds" because their current office does not include teaching as a qualification and responsibility of the office of Deacon.

I also, therefore, agree with Dr. Strimple when he makes the following observation in his New Horizons article,

The leading cause of this loss [of women deacons] of the N.T. understanding has been "colored by the work of the overseer" in the thinking of the church ... [t]he solution to all such derailed thinking is to seek a more accurate biblical understanding of the deacon. The important difference with regard to the nature of the authority exercised between the elders and the deacons would seem to be underscored in the greeting of Philippians 1:1 by the use of the, not merely different, but contrasting titles: "the overseers" and "the servants."

The RP Testimony in chapter 25 articles 9 and 11 also makes this distinction between the office of Elder and Deacon:

The responsibility of the elders is in teaching and ruling. Although all elders are to be able to teach, the Scripture recognizes a distinction in these functions. All elders are equal in the government of the Church. This office is referred to in Scripture by two terms used synonymously: elder, and bishop or overseer.
1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9; 1 Tim. 5:17; Acts 20:28; Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:28; Titus 1:7.

The diaconate is a spiritual office subordinate to the session and is not a teaching or ruling office. The deacons have responsibility for the ministry of mercy, the finances and property of the congregation, and such other tasks as are assigned to them by the session. Other officers mentioned in the New Testament were commissioned uniquely during the apostolic age for the establishment of the Church.
Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.

I may have a disagreement with the Testimony's use of Acts 6:1-7 as a proof-text. If the intention of the Testimony is to mean that in Acts 6:1-7 the text shows the establishment of the office of the Diaconate then I must disagree with the reference. There is, however, another possibility. Acts 6:1-7 can be understood, in the words of Dr. Strimple, to be "the record of the first official appointment of those who would oversee the distribution of that which was given to help meet the physical needs of the church's poor, which record quite properly guided the church 'analogically' in the later development of the Diaconate." For more on this view read the section of Dr. Strimple's minority report about Acts 6.

----------------

I have heard that some people in the RPCNA would be fine with women serving as Deacons if we did not ordain them. This position is, at best, a half-way house which avoids the entire basis of Presbyterianism. A Presbyterian form of church government is never practiced because it works efficiently. Ask any Presbyterian Elder how efficient the last session, Presbytery, or Synod meeting went and I am sure the question will either cause him to chuckle or sigh.

Historic Presbyterianism exists because the churches that organize themselves this way believe the Scriptures require a Presbyterian form of church government. As a consequence of this belief, all parts of how the church functions in its various offices need to be based on the Bible or they need to be abandoned. When the church expands into new areas of the world, Presbyterianism ought to go along with the spread of the Gospel regardless of the surrounding culture's form of government. The Gospel is counter-cultural and Presbyterianism is a good and necessary consequence of what the Bible teaches. Therefore, Presbyterianism ought to be part of any church planting work that happens. The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.7:

Christ has appointed in His Word a particular form of government for the visible church. It is government by elders (Greek: presbyters) and is therefore called presbyterian. Each congregation should be ruled by a session of ordained elders, elected by the membership of the congregation.
Acts 15:22; Acts 14:23; Acts 13:1-4; Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 8:19; 1 Tim. 3:1-7. (See Testimony, chap. 31, par. 3; and Directory for Church Government, chap. 3, sect. I and II, and chap. 4.)

As a result, a good question to ask is what is ordination? The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.8:

The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation.
1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6.

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters in his book How Jesus Runs the Church provides three observations about ordination in chapter 4 (pgs. 107 - 108):

1. We see in Scripture examples of ordination to the offices of both deacon and elder. In Acts 6, the Seven were set apart to the work to which the church had called them. Barnabas and Saul are ordained by the church at Antioch to the ministry of the Word (Acts 13:2).
2. In both Acts 6 and Acts 13, the men who ordain these men are themselves elders of the church. We also read of Paul reminding Timothy of Timothy's ordination (1 Tim. 4:14).
3. Ordination is a public indication that the man being ordained is called of God to this particular ministry.

It must be noted that Dr. Waters disagrees with both the current position of the RPCNA, Dr. Strimple, and myself about women being Deacons and allows that disagreement to affect his observations on ordination. Dr. Waters makes his disagreement with Dr. Strimple clear in footnote 84 (pg. 113) by saying that his arguments against B. B. Warfield's editorial "Presbyterian Deaconesses" also apply to Strimple's arguments with the respective differences being considered between Warfield and Strimple's presentations. Ironically, though, Waters then makes the observation while there were Deaconesses in the early church that these Deacons did not have teaching authority in the church. However, if he actually understands Dr. Strimple's paper then he ought to understand that Dr. Strimple's position about the Diaconate is that both the men and women called and ordained to be Deacons do not have any teaching authority in church (see quote below). Dr. Waters comment does not assure me that he has a correct distinction of the offices of Elder and Deacon. In spite of this disagreement, I do find Dr. Waters observations helpful. Dr. Waters also disagrees with Dr. Strimple about Acts 13:2.

Dr. Strimple provides the following set of considerations about ordination:

One may well say on the basis of the Biblical evidence that ordination appoints one to a ministerial office and function with authority to perform it. The undersigned [Bob Strimple] has no quarrel with such a definition. But it is a leap of logic to say that that office and that function in the case of the deacon involves the kind of teaching and ruling authority which the apostle rules out for women. That is what must be established, and we must not beg that question.
It should be noted, for example, that just two pages later (on p. 328) the Committee says: "Our conclusion ... is that I Corinthians 11:5, 13 imply that in some form public prayer and prophecy by women was an accepted practice in the churches known to Paul." In this way the Committee itself reminds us that we must be very specific as to precisely what kind of teaching and exercise of authority is forbidden to women by Paul's instruction in I Timothy 2:12....
John Owen is another who makes the distinction between the elders' authority and the deacons' authority clear, although his point seems to have been missed by the Committee, which quotes him with approval (p. 336) as though supporting its position: "This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office, it gives authority with respect unto the special work."...
It seems to the undersigned [Bob Strimple], however, that in view of what has been seen regarding the analogical relationship between the Seven and the later deacons, and the fact that ordination in the N.T. church was not narrowly restricted to ordination to the office of elder (see Acts 13:3), there is no reason not to ordain deacons, as long as ordination is not misunderstood as in itself investing the recipient with spiritual rule in the church.

Therefore, if the church correctly understands what ordination means then qualified women can be ordained to the office of Deacon based on the Bible's distinctions between the offices of Elder and Deacon.

----------------

At the RPCNA Synod meeting of 2015 the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRef) asked the RPCNA two questions:

1. What are the historical origins of women deacons within the church?
2. Does the adopted report of Synod 2002 over-state its argument when it cities 1 Timothy 3:11 as the "clearest and most decisive text for the question of women deacons?

I am not going to restate the paper; however, I thought I would highlight some important points mentioned in the paper by the Interchurch Committee. The report highlighted that the position of the RPCNA, currently, is that Acts 6 primarily does not categorically describe the origin of the office of Deacon. The report then refers the CanRef churches to Dr. Wayne Spear's book, Covenanted Uniformity in Religion. In the book, Dr. Spear has a section on how the Assembly debated the relationship between the office of Deacon and the events in Acts 6. Two minority views were formed on the issue. Presumably, however, the majority view was that Acts 6 was the creation of the diaconate. I have the book, but have not read it yet. The story does not end there, however. Out of these two minority views a committee formulated a two point response to the minority's arguments. Those two points—reported on by December 19, 1643—read as follows:

1. The office of a deacon is perpetual in the church. I Tim. iii. 8, Rom. xii. 8. 2. It hath been debated in the committee whether it pertain to the office of deacon to assist the minister in preaching of the word, and administration of the sacraments; but it was not determined upon, but referred to the judgment of the Assembly.

The report then discusses some historical issues surrounding the debate. Apparently, a statement was adopted later in the Assembly which says:

The scripture doth hold out deacons as distinct officers in the church. Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8 Whose office is perpetual. Acts 6:1‐4 To whose office it belongs not to preach the word, or administer the sacraments, but to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor.

Notice that the Assembly's adopted position did use Acts 6, but only to establish the Deaconate as perpetual office in the church, not as the origin of the office and not to show that the office of the Deacon was distinct from the office of Elder.

In addition, the 2015 report cities two writings published in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter magazine in 1888. The RP Archives has all the issues of this publication available for download. The two issues of particular interest are the October and November editions (pgs. 394-396; 424-448 of the pdf). In the November issue a committee of Synod known as the Small Committee published a detailed statement to explain the Synod's actions. Two other articles can also be found: one article expresses a dissenting opinion from the 1888 vote; and the other article is a transcript of the opening lecture given by Prof. D. B. Willson to start the academic school year at RPTS in 1888 on the question, "Should a Woman Be Ordained a Deacon?"

The work of the Small Committee is presented in three points:

1. "The institutions and provisions of the apostolic church were not all formally introduced at once, but from time to time, as they were found necessary to the comfort and edification of her members."—The Committee notes that the context of the need in Acts 6:1-7 was specifically to a certain group (Hellenists) and that the election was targeted to elect people within that group. The Small Committee agreed that by the time Paul wrote to the church in Philippi the office of Deacon was "recognized as a divine and permanent institution in all the churches."
2. "That the offices in the New Testament church are indicated both by official names given to the office‐bearers, and also by terms descriptive of their work."—New Testament words are used in two senses–the ordinary and the appropriated. In the New Testament church, the various names for office-bearers can only be determined by a careful study the context. "In its primary and ordinary signification the term rendered deacon simply means one who renders a service to another, and both it, and verb formed from it, are often used in this sense . . . But in time it has come to be chiefly used as a designation of a church office‐bearer, and though as a substantive it is not used of the seven (Acts 6:1-7), yet as a verb it is employed to express the nature of their work, 'to serve tables' (diakonein trapezais). We find this to be the case when we come across the word pastor, elder or deacon in an epistle, though no one is named specifically, we understand such persons exist in the congregations addressed. Hebrews 13:17 is such an example. Romans 12:6-8 presents us with “the several office‐bearers in the church are wholly designated by their work . . . Among these, ‘ministry’ (diakonia), the deacon’s work and office, is in its operations doubly described as ‘giving with liberality,’ and ‘showing mercy with cheerfulness.’ Therefore, when either the term deacon is used in connection with the church and her work, or when the work proper to the deacon’s office is clearly referred to, it is reasonably certain that a church officer is intended."
3. "That how far any ordinance or institution is to be enjoyed or exercised by members of the church, can only be learned by subsequent facts, not from the account of its first institution."—As a general rule, all members of the church enjoy all of the rights and privileges unless otherwise excluded from those same rights and privileges. The 2015 paper gives two examples of this idea outside of considering the office of Deacon: Baptism; the Lord's Supper. If we based our practice only on the sacraments when they were first given women would be excluded from receiving both New Covenant sacraments. Considering the practice of the administration of baptism, we have no example of women receiving baptism until twenty years after Jesus' ascension when Paul baptizes Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15). The Lord's Supper has a very similar pattern, Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 11:28 may prohibit women from the Table. However, the practice of this sacrament in Acts 1:14-2:42 demonstrates that Mary and other women were with the Apostles during Sabbath Day services and we can infer that the women were included because the text does not say anything about the women being excluded from the Table later in the passage. With these two examples demonstrating the rule being considered, we can now observe how the Small Committee applied this rule to the question of women Deacons. The Committee believed that the Acts 6 men were Deacons, but argued that this evidence alone does not exclude women from the office based on how the Deaconate was created. The new institution was adapted to the needs of the church when they appeared. After Acts 6:1-7 we have this new office created because of a need. Based on the Committee's second point, do we find in the rest of the New Testament any examples of women doing the work or being called Deacons in relation to a visible church and meeting the qualifications to be a Deacon? The paper says that if the second and third points are true of women then "they must be admissible to that office [the Deaconate]." It is at this point that the 1888 paper brings in Phoebe. Phoebe is a member of the church at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1); she is commended by Paul (Rom. 16:1) "to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (Rom. 1:7); she is called "a servant (διάκονον = deacon/servant) of the church at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1). The 2015 paper makes the observation that the Greek word διάκονον cannot mean Deaconess because the word is common gender, meaning that Paul did not intend to distinguish Phoebe's servant status on Phoebe's gender. The Committee concludes this third point by saying,

Now, we hold, that the word deacon is here used of Phoebe, not in its  primary or ordinary sense, but in its appropriated sense of a church officer, because she is spoken of in church relation. Had it been ‘a servant of God,’ or ‘a servant of the Lord,’ it would have proved nothing as to her holding office, because these expressions are applicable to all who are of the household of faith. But we are not aware that ‘servant of the church,’ or any similar expression, is ever used of persons except in official positions.

The 2015 report adds four additional examples of third point being demonstrated throughout the Bible as a type of short hand for other offices of official authority in the church:

1. Prophets and teachers at Antioch (Acts 13:1)
2. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor‐teachers in Ephesus (Eph. 4:11-16)
3. Moses was a servant in his house, no doubt referring to his official position in Israel, the Old Testament expression of the church (Heb. 3:5-6)
4. Paul assures Timothy that the church is the pillar and the ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)

Therefore, when Paul calls Phoebe a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea he must mean that she was an office-bearer based Paul's speech patterns in other writings. When Paul adds that "she has been a patron of many and of me also" (Rom. 16:2), the word translated "patron" is used to mean those who go before or are over others in any work. Paul uses this same word in 1 Tim. 3:3-4 to describe the qualifications of an overseer ruling their house. It was not uncommon for Paul to send "messengers of the church" (2 Cor. 8:16-24) to raise or distribute money.

The Small Committee summarized its entire argument by saying,

The principle is plain. To a woman belong all corporate rights in the church unless specifically excepted, as is the case as regards the ministry and eldership, whilst it cannot be shown that the deaconship is excepted but the contrary is established. In fact her rights here are fuller and plainer than her right to the Lorde’s table.

That is the RPCNA position as of 1888 on women serving as ordained Deacons in the visible church, with some clarification and additional insight by the 2015 Interchurch Committee of the RPCNA.

On the second question, asking about if the 2002 report over-stated the importance of 1 Timothy 3:8-12 as "the clearest and most decisive text" on women serving as Deacons? The Committee points out that this question must assume that Acts 6:1-7 is of the exact same importance to the CanRef churches about women Deacons as they are accusing the RPCNA of attaching to 1 Timothy 3:8-12. The difference between the two churches on this issue is that the RPCNA is acknowledging that the church was in a period of development during the days of the Apostles, and when all the Apostles died new revelation in the areas of doctrine and practice stopped. The church had all she needed until Christ's second coming. The CanRef churches, then, are not willing to acknowledge any period of development in doctrine and practice once church institutions and ordinances were first instituted. The report stresses that while Elders are necessary for the being of congregations the Deaconate is only necessary for the well-being of congregations. The distinction explains why Paul only wrote to Titus about the qualifications for one office instead of two. Since Paul's words to Timothy are fuller than they are to Titus the statements of the 2002 report are entirely justified.

This paper was adopted with the larger report by an overwhelming majority of Synod. That does not mean that this issue is resolved within the RPCNA. The vote only meant that nobody wanted to change our current position in a discussion with another church.

Overall, I am pretty happy with this response. It does seem to say that Acts 6:1-7 is not the institution of the Deaconate at the beginning, but then this distinction becomes lost when the paper discusses the work of the Small Committee and the paper never quite recovers the distinction afterwords. While I am glad that it defended the 2002 report, as I have already said I believe that the 2002 report does not give enough weight to Paul's commendation of Phoebe. I found the work of the Small Committee very helpful, but it does need some of the improvements that I have mentioned earlier in the current post. Although, even the Small Committee's work is currently being ignored in the RPCNA discussions on this issue so any reference to the work is appreciated. Rev. Bruce Backensto was the primary author and should be congratulated for his research and writing on this issue.

----------------

The pastor of First Reformed Presbyterian Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Dr. Christian Adjemian wrote a paper titled "On Women Deacons" last revised December 2008. This paper appears to argue for the unique office of Deaconess, which Rev. Backensto's paper demonstrates is an unwarranted position. I have shown earlier, that the office of Deacon has a categorically different type of authority than the office of Elder; therefore, Rev. Adjemian's comments about deacons not having authority in the church misses the point of having two church offices. The Deacon has authority in the church, but it a different type of authority than an Elder.

Many of his other comments, especially about structure, are very helpful. His sixth section answers many typical objections about the role of women in the church very well, with the exception of Deacons and church authority.

----------------

In conclusion, the following points are helpful to keep in mind:

1. An Elder and a Deacon have different roles and responsibilities in the church.
2. The office and title of Deacon does not imply the gender of the office-holder; therefore, the use of any term other than Deacon to title an ordained officer of the church who serves the church in the areas of "the ministry of mercy, the finances and property of the congregation, and such other tasks as are assigned to them by the session" is unbiblical and ought not to be used in any biblically organized church.
3. Because of the differences between the two church offices of Elder and Deacon, women may serve the church as ordained Deacons, but cannot serve as Elders.
4. Ordination is an act of the church recognizing that God has set apart a person for particular work in the church.
5. The qualifications for ordaining a person to a particular office are defined and limited by what the Scriptures teach about a particular office.
6. More work needs to be done to develop a biblical view of different types of authority within the church besides the teaching authority that comes with the office of Elder.
7. Different types of authority in the church must be taught and preached to church members at appropriate times so that church members can vote with biblical discernment in Elder and Deacon elections.
8. Teaching on different types of authority in the church may also have a positive effect on how the church understands congregational prayer, singing presenters, etc. as part of the worship service.
9. Although the work of Small Committee demonstrated that it is possible to believe that the seven men of Acts 6:1-7 were the first Deacons and maintain that Phoebe was a Deacon because of the nature of the church transitioning from the Apostolic period to the post-Apostolic period, the most consistent position of the office of Deacon recognizes the men of Acts 6:1-7 as holding a special office which led into the Deaconate. The office of the seven corresponds to the relationship between the office of Apostle and the office of Elder.
10. The texts cited in RP Testimony 25.8 must include a reference to both Phil. 1:1 and Rom. 16:1-2 to help future RP members and teachers understand the distinction between the office of Elder and Deacon is a biblical teaching and not a pragmatic compromise to the culture.

Issues to Consider about the Second/Third Commandment

One hard text to understand is the following part of the Second/Third Commandment in Exodus 20:5-6:

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Roderick Lawson of Maybole (1863-1897) reprinted the Westminster Shorter Catechism along with his own explanatory notes and review questions for each Shorter Catechism question. Lawson's comment on question and answer 56 is very helpful:

Comment: The special warning here held out to us is, that although men may permit us to break this commandment with impunity, yet God will assuredly not do so. He will not fail to judge us.

Lawson makes this commandment very personal. Both the Larger and Shorter Catechism do not deal directly with verses 5-6.

In Martin Luther's Large Catechism he explained the words of the third Commandment in his concluding section about the Ten Commandments. Luther numbered the third commandment the second commandment. The following quote are marked as paragraphs 319-326:

In conclusion, however, we must repeat the text which belongs here, of which we have treated already in the First Commandment, in order that we may learn what pains God requires to the end we may learn to inculcate and practise the Ten Commandments: For I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments. Although (as we have heard above) this appendix was primarily attached to the First Commandment, it was nevertheless [we cannot deny that it was] laid down for the sake of all the commandments, as all of them are to be referred and directed to it. Therefore I have said that this, too, should be presented to and inculcated upon the young, that they may learn and remember it, in order to see what is to urge and compel us to keep these Ten Commandments. And it is to be regarded as though this part were specially added to each, so that it inheres in, and pervades, them all. Now, there is comprehended in these words (as said before) both an angry word of threatening and a friendly promise to terrify and warn us, and, moreover, to induce and encourage us to receive and highly esteem His Word as a matter of divine earnestness, because He Himself declares how much He is concerned about it, and how rigidly He will enforce it, namely, that He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments; and again, how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good. Just this is also the meaning and true interpretation of the first and chief commandment, from which all the others must flow and proceed, so that this word: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, in its simplest meaning states nothing else than this demand: Thou shalt fear, love, and trust in Me as thine only true God. For where there is a heart thus disposed towards God, the same has fulfilled this and all the other commandments. On the other hand, whoever fears and loves anything else in heaven and upon earth will keep neither this nor any. 325] Thus the entire Scriptures have everywhere preached and inculcated this commandment, aiming always at these two things: fear of God and trust in Him. And especially the prophet David throughout the Psalms, as when he says [Ps. 147:11]: The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy. As if the entire commandment were explained by one verse, as much as to say: The Lord taketh pleasure in those who have no other gods. Thus the First Commandment is to shine and impart its splendor to all the others. Therefore you must let this declaration run through all the commandments, like a hoop in a wreath, joining the end to the beginning and holding them all together, that it be continually repeated and not forgotten; as, namely, in the Second Commandment, that we fear God and do not take His name in vain for cursing, lying, deceiving, and other modes of leading men astray, or rascality, but make proper and good use of it by calling upon Him in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, derived from love and trust according to the First Commandment. In like manner such fear, love, and trust is to urge and force us not to despise His Word, but gladly to learn, hear, and esteem it holy, and honor it.

Since we are talking about trying to understand a particular command of the moral law another good resource to look at is the Prophetic books of the Old Testament. The Prophets gave the word of the Lord to the nation of Israel during a long time of disobedience towards God, and so much of their prophesies are targeted towards how the covenant nation of Judah and the uncovenanted nation of Samaria (Willson, 64-67) were in an active state of breaking and twisting God's moral law. The tasks of the Prophets were to correctly interpret God's ten words given on Sinai so that the people's comfortable lifestyles were correctly understood as actually being uncomfortable to God. Their lives were a mess, because they have lowered God's standard so that "It's not their fault."

Three specific passages can help us understand Luther's appendix to every commandment. Jeremiah 16:10-13, Ezekiel 18, and 33:7-20. The most helpful passage is spoken through Jeremiah and says:

And when you tell this people all these words, and they say to you, "Why has the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity? What is the sin that we have committed against the Lord our God?" then you shall say to them: "Because your fathers have forsaken me, declares the Lord, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn, evil will, refusing to listen to me. Therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor."

According to Jeremiah the people were correct to say that God was not judging them based on the actions of their fathers, but Jeremiah's message went further to say that the present generation of the nation of Israel had exceeded their fathers in their sinful acts.

My pastor, Dave Long, helpfully pointed out the Jeremiah passage many years ago while preaching on the Westminster Larger Catechism.

Does the Bible Say How Much the Old Testament Saints Understood?

Recently I had a conversation with a very dear Brother in Christ about a book review that he wrote. Amongst the subjects he covered in his review was the issue of the extent of knowledge that the Saints in the time before Christ about how their prophesies would actually come to fulfillment. It was his belief that the book's author was wrong when the author wrote that the believers in the Old Testament (and particularly the Prophets) simply did not have a full knowledge of how their prophesies would be fulfilled. Furthermore, this Brother, made the additional assertion that we cannot know, based on the Bible, that the Old Testament writers did not fully understand how their writings would be fulfilled. In other words, Old Testament believers might have had better knowledge of Christ being the fulfillment of their prophesies than just the types and shadows would suggest.

However, I had a problem with both of his ideas, because the New Testament says that the Gospel going beyond the nation of Israel was "... the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people" (Colossians 1:26). A few days after this conversation, I was continuing to read Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry for my upcoming Interpretation of the Bible class at RPTS. Dr. Terry's chapter 9 of Part 2 considers rules for how we should interpret Biblical typology and symbols. On the printed page number 250, Dr. Terry begins to consider how we should understand types by saying:

The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories.  Nevertheless, in view of the peculiar nature and purpose of the scriptural types, we should be careful in the application of the following principles:

On printed page 254 Terry writes the following:

3. The Old Testament types are susceptible of complete interpretation only by the light of the Gospel.  It has too often been hastily assumed that the ancient prophets and holy men were possessed of a full knowledge of the mysteries of Christ, and vividly apprehended the profound significance of all sacred types and symbols.  That they at times had some idea that certain acts and institutions foreshadowed better things to come may be admitted, but according to Heb. ix, 7-12, the meaning of the holiest mysteries of the ancient worship was not manifest while the outward tabernacle was yet standing.  And not only did the ancient worshippers fail to understand those mysteries, but the mysteries themselves the forms of worship, "the meats, and drinks, and divers washings, ordinances of flesh,imposed until a time of rectification" (διοϱθώσεωϛ, straightening up), were unable to make the worshippers perfect.  In short, the entire Mosaic cultus was, in its nature and purpose, preparatory and pedagogic (Gal. iii, 25), and any interpreter who assumes that the ancients apprehended clearly what the Gospel reveals in the Old Testament types, will be likely to run into extravagance, and involve himself in untenable conclusions.

Hebrews 9:7-12 says:

... but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Finally, let's consider the life of Abraham from the perspective of a man who is given a very specific promise in Genesis 12:7 about having offspring then how he and his family understand God's promise.

In Genesis 11:30, we are told that Sarai (later renamed Sarah) was not able to given birth to children. Genesis 12:4 says that Abram (later also renamed Abraham), Sarai, and Lot left Haran when Abram was 75 years old. In Genesis 15:1-6, God talks with Abram in a vision and in verse 4 God corrects Abram's fear that his extended family will inherit his house by telling Abram that the offspring God spoke of in 12:7 is Abram's "very own son" and not a relative of Abram. In Genesis 16:1-4 we read of Sarai's attempt to provide a fulfillment of God's promise by means of her servant Hagar. We read in verse 16 that Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born. In Genesis 17 and 18:1-15 we read of God's promise in 12:7 being given to Abram for a third time with far greater detail than the previous promises when Abram is 99 year old and Sarah's unbelief that she could actually give birth to a child. Finally, in Genesis 21:1-7, we read of the birth of Isaac and God's promise, in 12:7, being fulfilled through the means that God actually intended. By this time Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is 90 years old!

Therefore, we have seen in the life of Abraham that Abraham was given a promise by God, undoubtedly shared that promise with his wife, and then both of them try two different ways of fulfilling God's promise according to their own ways. How much simpler would it have been if they just knew how God was going to bring about the birth of Issac from Sarah? However, they were only given the promise. The only reason why Abraham and Sarah tried to bring about God's promises through the two other means that they did in Genesis 15:1-6 and Genesis 16:1-4 is because they didn't know the 'how' and the 'when' of God's fulfillment to their family.

This conclusion should not scare us. This conclusion should cause us to pray and wait on the faithful God to bring us to the places we should be in our lives. This should also lead us into action. We have a God who is in control of opening and closing doors as we live our lives. Part of our waiting is being patient but it also involves us trying out different possibilities according to God's moral law. We can do this because we have full assurance that God will lead us to where he wants us to go.

While I still respect this dear Brother in Christ, because of the above mentioned reasons I must disagree with him on this matter, by saying that the Old Testament Saints were not more aware about how God's purposes would come to His fulfillment. The Scriptures, furthermore, are not silent on this issue. Yes, Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day and was glad (John 8:56-59) and the author of Hebrews said Abraham was looking forward to the city built by God (Hebrews 11:8-10). However, all of this was done by faith towards the faithful God who would bring about His promises in His way, not the way of what believers perceive as God's ways. It's okay for Christians, both in the Old and New Testament, to be surprised by God.

Is Christ as the 'last Adam' a Theological Peccadillo?

Even though it's not apparent on the comments section of my previous post about Jesus Christ being the 'last Adam' as opposed to the 'second Adam' my Google+ post has generated some comments that basically ask if the distinction is so obscure that it really has little or no actual meaning.

While I'm not going to post that entire discussion in the current post, I though that a few additional comments that came out of that discussion would be helpful on this matter.

First, Professor Donnelly's statement that I quoted in the previous post is a conclusion to Donnelly writing about Paul's use of the term 'one man' in Romans 5:12-21. The statement I quoted from is on page 20, and the actual topic begins on page 17 and ends on page 20. It maybe helpful to highlight some of Donnelly's teaching up to his concluding statements.

Donnelly writes on page 20, explaining Romans 5:

Everything that Adam, the 'one man', did is counted as having been done also by everyone he represents. His relationship with God is counted, or 'reckoned', as being their relationship. In the same way, everything that Christ, the 'one man', did is counted to the credit of those he represents, and all that was in his obedience and purity is regarded as theirs.

In the above quote, Donnelly is setting up the idea of two covenantal heads (representatives) for all of humanity. A few good questions are, where does the Bible teach this idea? In addition, is it an explicit teaching of the Bible, or an implicit teaching of the Bible? If it is an implicit teaching that doesn't necessarily disqualify it, because all Christians who subscribe to the Westminster Standards ought to confess, in the words of the Confession I.6:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: ...

Doctrines like the Trinity, infant baptism, and even Jesus' example to the Sadducees of the bodily  resurrection being taught in the Old Testament (Matt. 22:32) are just three examples of implicit teaching that are recognized by the Confession as part of "[t]he whole counsel of God ...". It might be worth having a separate post about "by good and necessary consequence" because while all Christians believe in the Trinity and bodily resurrection, many Christians don't believe that infants should be baptized. Regardless of that point, right now, the fact is that the Bible uses logical consequences to inform what we believe, and not merely direct statements.

The idea of two covenantal heads, however, is not a implicit teaching, but is an explicit teaching of Paul in Romans 5. Here's a sampling of Paul's teaching in eight verses where our relationship to the first Adam is explicitly made seven times:

sin came into the world through one man . . . many died through one man's trespass . . . the result of that one man's sin . . . the judgment following one trespass . . . because of one man's trespass, death reigned . . . one trespass led to condemnation for all men . . . by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.
              (verses 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

It is because of Paul's teaching in Romans 5 that the Shorter Catechism question and answer 16 says:

all mankind, descending from him [Adam] by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Donnelly concludes, writing about the first Adam and us, in the following words on page 18:

Sin is the universal human condition because of our union with Adam.

What is the solution that Paul goes on to explain in his letter to us losing favor with God on account of our covenantal head? We gain God's favor through another covenant head—'through one man'.  Paul's words in verse 14 are very important to understanding Donnelly's conclusion:

Adam . . . was a type of the one who was to come.

Beginning in verse 15, Paul, stresses the same truth about 'one man' that was applied to Adam, but now applies it towards Jesus Christ:

the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many . . . reign in life through the one man . . . one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men . . . by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
               (verses 15, 17, 18, 19)

Donnelly concludes his exegesis on Romans 5 in the following words on page 19:

We are saved in the same way as we were lost. Our redemption, though infinitely greater than our ruin, is in this respect parallel to it. In Adam we sinned. In Adam we fell. In Adam we were condemned. In Adam we died. And then in Christ we obeyed. In Christ we lived a perfect life. In Christ we paid for sin. In Christ we have been raised. In Christ we live for ever. All that he is is counted as ours. All that he suffered is counted as ours. All that he achieved is counted as ours.

Donnelly, then, moves on to 1 Corinthians 15:22 and draws the conclusion that we die or live depending on our representative head before God. As a result, when Paul calls the Saviour 'the last Adam . . . the second man' Paul is writing that Jesus is the head [last Adam] of a new humanity [second man]. This new species of men and women are in a new relationship with God and are being dealt with on an entirely new basis. All Christians are joined to 'the second man'. Jesus is 'second' because there are many more new men and women to come—millions of them, 'a great multitude that no one could number' (Rev. 7:9).

Therefore, on the basis of this teaching, Professor Donnelly then briefly addresses why calling Christ the second Adam is a category mistake. I've already posted Donnelly's argument before, revisit that post if want to see what Donnelly says.

Secondly, the reason that the phrase 'second Adam' is an example of category confusion is because Paul uses 'Adam' to mean both the literal first man that God created, and to teaches that Adam is our representative between every person who is a physical descendant of Adam and our Creator God. Adam broke the covenant of works, and therefore, we, because Adam was our representative have inherited the curse of our head breaking the covenant of works. In the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 7.2, we, as the RPCNA, say:

By this principle of covenant headship the guilt and penalty of sin come upon all men by Adam’s one sin; and by the obedience of Christ, the second covenant head, righteousness and life come upon all men who believe.
Rom. 5:12-21.

Furthermore, in 7.3, we confess that

The Covenant of Works has not been revoked. All men remain under its requirement of perfect obedience and will have to give account according to it at the last judgment. In the Covenant of Grace Jesus Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Covenant of Works for His people. By His death Christ secured the delay of the full penalty of death for sin (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15) for all men. They therefore may enjoy the creation and have some fruitful toil in it for God’s glory, even though they be rebellious against Him. This is usually called common grace.
Heb. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10, 21; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gen. 4:20-24; Ps. 76:10.

Paul, by saying that Adam was a type (Romans 5:15), is teaching that 'the first man' (1 Corinthians 15:45) is/was our representative. Jesus as 'the last Adam' was 'the one who was to come' (Romans 5:14). Paul, by using this typology is addressing the representative roles that both Adam and Christ uniquely had in human history. Noah and David could have also have been understood as Adams in their own day, because even though they were sinners they occupied unique positions in redemptive history in their own times, but Jesus is the last Adam who has accomplished salvation.

In addition, to the representative nature of Adam and Christ, however, Paul calls Jesus 'the second man'. Does Paul mean the same thing as he meant when he called Christ the 'last Adam'? I don't believe so. I believe that Paul is calling Jesus 'the second man' because unlike 'the first man', Noah, or David when this second covenant representative is joined to men and women these other men and women become new men and women of the last Adam.

Finally, I want to address the matter of why this issue is important under two issues. The first issue is simply, and most importantly, a matter of using biblical words according to how the Bible uses them, and then my second issue is to recognize that we have seen examples in church history of groups denying either our representation "in Adam" before God, or the completeness of Jesus work on our behalf before God.

Under the first issue about trying to use biblical words/phrases as close as possible to the ways the biblical authors use them, assuming a faithful translation is being used. Professor John Murray, in a 1953 address delivered in Selwyn College, Cambridge, as the Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture spoke about how Biblical covenants should be understood throughout the entire Bible. This lecture was then published in 1954 as the booklet The Covenant of Grace, which is also available online to read.

Early on in the lecture (pg. 8), Professor Murray, after explaining how Reformed Theologians have used the term 'covenant', considers how the term is used in the Bible by using the following criteria:

As we study the biblical evidence bearing upon the nature of divine covenant we shall discover that the emphasis in these theologians upon God’s grace and promise is one thoroughly in accord with the relevant biblical data. ... The question is simply whether biblico-theological study will disclose that, in the usage of Scripture, covenant (berith in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek) may properly be interpreted in terms of a mutual pact or agreement.

Professor Murray is starting with a definition of 'covenant' and asking if that definition matches the results of a biblico-theological study which is a valid starting question when investigating a topic.

While I do prefer Murray's starting principle, I don't agree, by the way, with Murray on his particular application of this principle to 'covenant' because one of his main points about a biblical covenant is that it is always "a dispensation of grace to men" (pg. 15). My objection to this point is that it does not account for the pre-fall relationship between Adam and God being a covenant (Hos. 6:7) that promised an eternal life of confirmed holiness to Adam, on the condition of obedience. The obedience Adam owed to God was not special, but, the reward for obedience was special because God was/is Adam's Creator and therefore God was not obligated to give Adam a reward for what Adam ought to do. Murray wanted to call the arrangement before the Fall 'the Adamic Administration', but didn't adequately explain how this 'administration' was actually different than a 'covenant'.

For more information about this teaching of Professor Murray's read T. David Gordon's essay "Reflections on Auburn Theology" in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification on especially pages 118-124, and Dr. Robert B. Strimple's syllabus for his second systematic theology class titled, Christ our Savior pages 13-14, and 77-78. For a few helpful resources on more generally understanding the pre-Fall state of Adam as a covenant see Richard C. Barcellos's "A Typical Objection to the Covenant of Works", and Edward Fisher's work The Marrow of Modern Divinity along with Thomas Boston's notes in Chapter 1, Section 1. If you are looking at the edition published in 2009 by the Christian Heritage imprint the discussion on page 53 is addressing this issue of terminology.

The second issue is what can we learn from church history about groups that deny either our federal relationship to Adam 'the first man' or Christ 'the last Adam'. On the heretical side of historical theology it is important to note that both Mormons and Muslims deny our relationship to the first man. The Mormons have a document by Joseph Smith that describe their fundamental beliefs in 13 statements. Article two, states:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

While the Muslims do not have as clear a statement in the Qur'an as the Mormons about their denial of Adam's sin and its relation to us, I have found some very clear teaching about original sin on Islamcan, and IslamBasics. Here's a little bit of the conclusion from the article on IslamBasics, which tries to argue from the Bible that Adam's representative role is in contradiction with the entire Bible:

    Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth. Sin, it says, is not inherited, but it is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should not do and not doing what he should do.
    Rationally considered also, it would be the height of injustice to condemn the entire human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents. Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie only on the person who has committed it, and not on his children.
    Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.
    It is the height of misanthropy and cynicism to consider children to be sinful at birth. How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are doomed to burn eternally in the fire of Hell. Till recently, the unbaptised infants were not buried in consecrated grounds in Christendom, because they were believed to have died in the Original Sin.

However, it's not only present day heretical groups, who deny our relationship to Adam, but this was the main issue between an African Bishop named Augustine and a British monk name Pelagius that began around A.D. 411 or A.D. 412. For a brief overview. read Dr. R.C. Sproul's short article Augustine and Pelagius, and/or B.B. Warfield's longer treatment Augustine and Pelagian Controversy. It is my belief that it is quite appropriate to make the connection between Islamic teaching, Mormon teaching, and Pelagius' teaching. Therefore, any possible sharing of the Gospel with a person either in one of these three religions, or with a background in these circles, must deal with correctly explaining the doctrine of Original Sin to help the person understand Jesus' work. Even a Presbyterian minister, Charles Finney, denied any kind of connection between us and Adam in his Lectures on Systematic Theology, pages 296-297 in the following words:

    Sin or disobedience to moral law does not imply in any instance a sinful nature; or a constitution in itself sinful.  Adam and Eve sinned.  Holy angels sinned.  Certainly in their case sin or disobedience did not imply a sinful nature or constitution.  Adam and Eve, certainly, and holy angels also, must have sinned by yielding to temptation. The constitutional desire being excited by the perception of their correlated objects, they consented to prefer their own gratification to obedience to God, in other words, to make their gratification an end.  This was their sin.  But in this there was no sin in their constitutions, and no other tendency to sin than this, that these desires, when strongly excited, are a temptation to unlawful indulgence.
    It has been strangely and absurdly assumed that sin in action implies a sinful nature. But this is contrary to fact and to sound philosophy, as well as contrary to the Bible, which we shall see in its proper place.
    As it was with Adam and Eve, so it is with every sinner.  There is not, there can not be sin in the nature or the constitution.  But there are constitutional appetites and passions, and when these are strongly excited, they are a strong temptation or inducement to the will to seek their gratification as an ultimate end.  This, as I have said, is sin, and nothing else is or can be sin.  It is selfishness.  Under its appropriate head, I shall show that the nature or constitution of sinners has become physically depraved or diseased, and that as a consequence, the appetites and passions are more easily excited, and are more clamorous and despotic in their demands; and that, therefore, the constitution of man in its present state, tends more strongly than it otherwise would, to sin.  But to affirm that the constitution is in itself sinful, is to talk mere nonsense.

The implications of what the Mormons, Muslims, Pelagius, and Finney taught and/or teach are quite simply that Christ was not the last Adam, because nothing changed when Adam sinned. Likewise, all of these different shades of heresy also teach a different view of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't really die for sins completely, if he even died on the cross. He did his part, and the debate between these different groups is how we should do our part.

In conclusion, while I am under no illusion that the use of the phrase "second Adam" will fade into the dustbin of historical theology anytime soon, as current theological books/journals demonstrate, I hope that I have shown from the Bible that the terms "second man" and "last Adam" have two distinctly different meanings about the person and work of Christ and that this mixing adjectives in front of different nouns is not faithful to the Scriptures. I have furthermore endeavored to demonstrate from church history some possible outcomes of believing that this issue can be a matter of indifference, or is an obscure point of theology. While I would not question the orthodoxy of Brothers and Sisters in Christ on this issue alone, I would encourage those Brothers and Sisters to consider the Apostle Paul's teaching and use of words in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Unlike the term "trinity", Paul has, through the Holy Spirit, given us these terms to make to teach us two different lessons about Jesus. All that is needed to be done, on this matter, is to follow Paul's exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13, which would have been written after the letters to the churches in Rome and Corinth:

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

A Few Additional Thoughts About the Threefold Division of the Law

Dr. C.J. Williams, Old Testament Professor at RPTS, demonstrates the Threefold Division of the Law in the Old Testament by pointing to Leviticus 19. For example, let's look at verses 4-10:

4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God. 5 “When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted. 6 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it or on the day after, and anything left over until the third day shall be burned up with fire. 7 If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is tainted; it will not be accepted, 8 and everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned what is holy to the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from his people. 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God."

In verse 4, we have a restatement of the second commandment of the moral law. In verses 5-10, we then see the commandment applied to the state of Israel in two slightly different ways. Verses 5-8, instruct the people how to apply the second commandment through the ceremonial system that God gave His people to show them Christ. Verses 9-10, then, show how the second commandment applies to the civil society of Israel before Christ's coming (Genesis 49:10).

----------------

 Here's a brief original restatement of the three categories of law that makeup the Threefold Division:

Moral—God's standard for all the people of the world at all times which is written on every person's heart as a part of the image of God (Genesis 1:26; 9:6; Romans 2:15-16).

Ceremonial—God's requirement for sin to be dealt with that pictures Christ's satisfaction for our sins before Christ came, died, and rose again.

Civil—God's application of the moral law to a special people before Christ's first coming.

I think this is a helpful short summary for the following three reasons:

1. Both the ceremonial and civil laws had different purposes in God's redemptive history when they were revealed
2. They were both instituted at different times: the ceremonial law was given to Adam and Eve in the Garden after they sinned to prefigure Christ; the civil laws were given to Israel through Moses after the Ten Commandments were republished to the entire nation of Israel in Exodus 21:1-22:29
3. Different events in redemptive history marked the end of these two different laws: the ceremonial law was abrogated upon Christ's death as demonstrated by the temple veil being torn in two (Matthew 27:51); the civil law ended when Christ came (Genesis 49:10). Jesus is the Shiloh that Jacob was prophesying to Judah about. Christ took the scepter from Judah and now has it with Him in heaven

----------------

For more information about the Threefold Division start with part one of Phillip Ross' lecture about the Division.