Since 2016, to justify supporting Trump, many Christians peddled the idea that he was like King Cyrus, a foreign king that God used to help Israel. For argument’s sake, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and concede that is perhaps, in some ways, what happened. However, by them also condoning Trump’s behavior throughout his Presidency rather than rebuking his evil ways, they ended up helping refashion a “man of lawlessness” too.
Did God Reverse the 2016 Results in 2020?
As I see it, God’s disapproval of Trump and Trumpism is reflected in the 2020 election results. Consequently, Christians will now have to suffer under the sins of the Democrats rather than have the nation suffer under the evil that they disregarded in Trump. Furthermore, if Trump was put in by God as a “King Cyrus,” then is it possible that the reversal of his 306-232 winning margin in 2016 to exactly 232-306 in 2020 is a sign that God has reversed His decision and is disciplining Christians for serving the creature rather than the Creator? Do you need to repent of that?
Warning of a Trump Resurrection
Finally, a word of warning! If Trump’s behavior in his first term of office has been bad, His behavior is likely to be far worse if he is elected in 2024! For, the consequences then could be far worse than tolerating his endless lies, his Ukraine call cover-up and impeachment, his bungling of the coronavirus pandemic, and his administration’s low regard for Black lives and migrants. Also, if he is re-elected in 2024, he will have no more need of Christians and may turn on them just as the beasts Nero and Domitian did on the early Christians.
More Posts on President Trump, the Coronavirus, and God’s Judgment
In 2016, highly influential evangelical leader, Jerry Falwell Jr., endorsed Donald Trump’s candidacy despite the candidate’s gross shortcomings in character. He said, “We’re not choosing the pastor-in-chief, we’re choosing the President of the United States.” In doing this he broke rank with God, for this is not how the Almighty taught us when He chose David to be king. For, in choosing David, God found a man after His own heart.
Trump, “the best doctor”
The irony is that Falwell said that he saw in Trump a man who loved people and went on to say, “if you had a young child who was ill you would want to choose the best doctor.” With 250 000 Americans dead, largely because of Trump’s politicking and despite his confessed early knowledge of the danger of the coronavirus, it seems that he has loved himself, power, and the dollar more than the American people.
Church Leaders Follow Evil and the People Follow Suit
If America is in a mess today, it’s because evangelicals sidestepped serious character flaws in Trump and then went on to excuse his behavior throughout his term of office. In their blind zeal for God, they endorsed a “fox” rather than a man after God’s own heart or even just a good man like God found in king Cyrus of Persia.
Consequently, America’s evangelical leaders are not unlike the prophets and priests in the days of Judah. For Jeremiah writes, “The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly. ‘Both prophet and priest…I find their wickedness,’ declares the Lord” (Jer. 23:10-11 NIV).
Church leaders like Falwell, Franklin Graham, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, and countless others must repent of endorsing evil and for helping to lead the church and the nation into the idolatry of Trumpism. Furthermore, the church must repent of making super-gurus out of church leaders, for this idolatry causes Christians to be led by people rather than God.
Jesus does not take kindly to false teaching and idolatry. For, to the church of Pergamum, He says, “I have a few things against you: There are some among you…who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:14-16 NIV).
In a recent post, I mentioned I read through a commentary of Genesis by Derek Kidner in the Tyndale OT series. It is copyright from 1967. The point in noting its older date, is that I was surprised (pleasantly) by some egalitarian or progressive thoughts on the opening chapters of Genesis.
In the introduction Kidner states, in regards to the Fall:
“The shattering of the harmony of man and wife, not by any mutual disagreement but by their agreeing together against God, proved at once how dependent it had been on His [God’s] unseen participation. Without Him, love would henceforth be imperfect, and marriage would gravitate towards the sub-personal relationship foreshadowed in the terms ‘desire’ and ‘rule.'”
Kidner goes on to say that the rest of Genesis confirms this tendency. “Polygamy is partly to blame for this, but polygamy is itself the symptom of an unbalanced view of marriage, which…
Complementarianism is a belief that limits the roles of a wife to those that won’t infringe on her husband as head ‘over’ her. As such, Complementarianism is a form of patriarchy, but, unlike full-blown Patriarchy, which has women subject to men in every area of society, this version is restricted to how it effects the spousal relationship. The basis for this belief is their interpretation of Biblical passages like Eph 5:23, 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Cor 14:34-35. (Click on the references for an Egalitarian/Mutualist view of these passages).
In a nutshell, Complementarian wives cannot take on any leadership roles in society where they are ‘over’ their husbands. And so, fueled by a common misconception that church leadership roles are hierarchical, despite Jesus commanding to the contrary (Matt 20:25-27), Complementarians restrict women in church roles too, in order to prevent them from violating their concept of male headship in the home. In fact, when it comes to church leadership, Complementarians are especially quick to implement this practice, believing that Paul was addressing the possible violation of this spousal headship structure in passages like 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Cor 14:34-35.
HEAD – AUTHORITY OR SOURCE?
What is clear is that this belief hinges on the principle of hierarchical headship in the home. However, even though Ephesians 5:23 certainly does speak of the husband as head (Gk. kephale)of the wife, the biblical era meaning of ‘head’ (Gk. kephale) means source and not rank headship. Also, to note, is that the text says that ‘the husband is the head of (not over) the wife, even as Christ is the head of (not over) the church, which also fits with that era’s use of ‘head’ as source and not authority.
But, someone might ask, what of 1 Corinthians 11:3 that reads: 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.
Here, the term “head”, from the Gk. kephale, is also to be understood as “source” or “origin”, without the idea of rank, and carrying the idea of chronology and not hierarchy.
To further substantiate this, the sequence in 1Cor 11:3 shows that hierarchy wasn’t the meaning. The sequence in the text is: Man – Christ, Wife – Husband, Christ – God
If hierarchy was the meaning, then it would have had this order: Wife – Husband, Man – Christ, Christ – God
Thirdly, hierarchical interpretation of this passage begs the question, is the ascended Christ, the Son of God, under God? As the Word, having been equal to God, He relinquished His equality for our salvation, but isn’t He restored to equality with God with ALL authority in heaven and earth? And, only at the end will He subject Himself to God again (see 1 Cor 15:28).
ORDER BY CHRONOLOGY ACCORDING TO ORIGIN/SOURCE
The source of every man is Christ (ADAM was made by Christ)
The source of the woman is the man (Eve came from Adam; also descriptive of that time when a husband was the main provider of physical resources and spiritual food which he could access more easily and from which she was often deprived access)
The source of Christ is God (Christ from God, Begotten of God, God became flesh to be the Christ)
Consider Cyril of Alexandria (5th century): “Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was made through Him and brought forward to birth…. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh and has him as her source. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because He is from Him according to nature.”
Furthermore, Eph 5:21 says ‘submitting yourselves one to another’, which clarifies that the male headship spoken of in Eph 5:23 must be understood within the context of mutual submission and not rank leadership, even if men had this kind of authority through state legislation or culturally. In fact, the term ‘submit’ in Eph 5:22 is not in the Greek, which clearly shows that wives were being directed to the same ‘submitting…one to another’ of Eph 5:21, and not another.
Even in the unlikely event that ‘head’ did mean rank headship in this passage, it should be seen as being descriptive of a husband in New Testament society, who automatically acquired legal authority over his household by virtue of his gender, but as prescriptive of how he ought to behave, given his position, for the sake of his wife and not primarily his own. Understood this way, Paul was being prescriptive within the confines of Roman society’s boundaries, just as he was with slave owners and slaves.
NO CHURCH HIERARCHY
Ironically, neither the meaning of source or rank for ‘head’ would preclude a wife from becoming an elder or pastor in a church and thereby interfere with the supposed spousal rank ‘headship’ principle, because there is no hierarchy in the Church where anyone is ranked ‘over’ another, except Jesus as Lord. That said, it is evident that the passages on Jesus being ‘head of’ His body also have to do with Him being the source rather than being about rank leadership, though it is clear from other contexts that He has this too.
SUBMIT TO HUSBAND
Also ironic is that if one takes a Mutualist (Egalitarian) or Complementarian view here and considers the likely scenario where a husband agrees or allows (depending on the view) his wife to be a pastor, elder, governor, or the country’s president, either by mutual consensus or authority over (again, depending on the view), then the outcome would be that she may, for Eph 5:23 says that it is to her husband that she is supposed to submit. And so, no church or any other man has the authority to stop her.
COMPLEX, BEYOND BELIEF
The Complementarian narrative centers around subordinate roles of a wife in relation to her husband, but the exact parameters for women in general, and each woman in particular, appears to be subject to the discretion and influence of male church leaders who claim Biblical authority for their exclusively male role and their varying interpretations. Furthermore, the application of their belief becomes so tricky, given their various interpretations, that it is hard to imagine that God would have given us something so difficult to pin down. Not to mention that the complexity of applying their belief increases and varies even more when we step out of the spousal relationship and consider leadership for single women or widows that don’t fall under these headship passages.
Q – Doesn’t the naming of Eve show that Adam had authority over her?
A – No, both male and female were created in the image of God and they were given shared authority to rule (Gen 1:28).
There is a Jewish tradition that the one who does the naming of another has authority over the one named. There is, however, no evidence that Adam had authority over the Woman when he called her ‘Woman’ and later named her ‘Eve’.
The two occasions where Adam ‘named’ the Woman were unlike the naming of the animals that God brought ‘to the man to see what he would call them.’
The first time that Adam saw the woman he exclaimed, ‘she shall be called Woman’. This was done out of a response to what he saw and out of his free will and NOT by God’s command, leading, or for God’s own interest (as with the animals).
The second time, when he names her ‘Eve’, it is after the Fall and so we cannot interpret anything from this with regard to God’s original intention that is seen in Gen 1:28.
Q – Doesn’t the Bible say that wives are to submit to their husbands as their ‘head’?
A – Yes and No. Yes, only if the term ‘head’ (Greek: kephale) is understood as ‘origin’ or ‘source’ without the meaning of rank. The Bible teaches mutual submission between spouses.
1 Corinthians 11:3 reads: ‘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.’ Here, the term ‘head’, from the Greek kephale, is to be understood as ‘source’ or ‘origin’ without the idea of rank and has as its meaning the idea of chronology and not hierarchy. For more on 1 Cor 11:3.
Ephesians 5:22-24 reads: ‘Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.’
Firstly, it is key to note that just prior to these verses, verse 21 says: ‘…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ Secondly, being ‘head’ meant that husbands were to be the source (kephale) of love, care and provision for their wives as Christ is for the Church. It did not mean that they were to be their lords or have rank above their wives as Christ has over the Church.
Q – Can women be elders (leaders/pastors) in the church?
A – Yes, Paul says, ‘If anyone (Greek tis – a gender neutral term) wants to be an elder…’
In Christ, we are restored to the equality at creation (Gen 1:28). Male rule came about as a result of the Fall (Gen 3:16), but is ended for those ‘in Christ’ where there is ‘neither male nor female’ (Gal 3:28). Both redeemed men and women are called ‘Sons of God’ and Christians are to regard ‘no man according to the flesh.’
Q – Doesn’t the Bible say that women are to ‘keep silent’ in church?
A – No. In fact it says just the opposite.
Paul was clearly exasperated that such an idea was proposed and responded with ‘What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?’ (See 1 Cor 14:34-36).
Also, Paul would be contradicting himself if he taught that women were to keep silent. Consider that he says in 1 Cor 14:26, ‘…when ye come together, EVERY ONE of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation…’ This would have been impossible for women if they had been commanded to ‘keep silent’ in church.
In the context of 1 Tim 2:12, where it says ‘…she (a woman/wife) is to remain quiet/silent’, the term ‘silent’ is better translated ‘in quietness/quietly’, which suggests refraining from bustle and chatter.