Van Wyk Echoes on the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church Statement by the Seminary at Andrews


By Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)





We, the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, affirm that Christ is the only Head of the Church (Eph 1:22; 5:23; Col 1:18). Therefore, while there exists legitimate leadership in the Church, no other human being may rightfully claim a headship role in the Church. As Head of the Church, Christ provides the ultimate manifestation of God’s love (Eph 5:23, 25), demonstrating and vindicating God’s moral government of love (Rom 3:4,

25-26 5:8), and thus defeating the counterfeit government of the usurping “ruler of this

world” (John 12:31; 16:11; cf. DA 758; 2T 2:211).

Van Wyk Note Echo:

I claim that the headship of Christ is not a New Testament creation but existed all the way since the creation of Man. As Head of the Remnant, Christ provides the ultimate manifestation in the Old Testament Tabernacle service system, in Abraham’s offering of Isaac, in Noah’s offerings, in Abel’s offering that it is the man that is officiating not their wives. In doing so, Christ is still the ultimate manifestation of God’s love also for woman. The priest-system of the Old Testament as opposed to the priestess system of Jezebel in II Kings 18ff. demonstrated and vindicate still God’s moral government of love and defeat the counterfeit government of the usurping “ruler of this world” working through the high-priestess of Baal and Asherat, Jezebel.

God’s Moral Government of Love

Christ’s headship in the Church is inextricably bound up with the love of God and is itself

the ultimate explication of God’s love for the world (John 3:16; 15:13; Rom 5:8). As the sole “head of the church,” Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:23, 25).i Christ’s demonstration of divine love as Head of the Church directly reflects God’s moral government of love, within which the law is a transcript of God’s character and, conversely, love is itself the fulfillment of God’s law (Matt 22:37-39; Rom 13:8; cf. TMK 366).

Since love requires moral freedom, God does not exercise His headship power or authority to coerce or determine the moral will of His created beings. God permitted rebellion, at the highest cost to Himself, because He desires willing obedience that is motivated by love rather than fear. Such voluntary obedience could not be obtained by the exercise of power or authority, but can only be freely given. In this way, God’s government is based on freely bestowed mutual love wherein God does not deterministically impose His will, but does hold intelligent creatures morally accountable to His perfect law of love.

Van Wyk Echo: This total freedom was extended to both male and female in the Old Testament and Christ did not interfere at all with this tenet of His Headship implications ever since Adam and Eve.

Accordingly, rather than exercising His infinite power to unilaterally prevent or overturn the rebellion by removing the freedom necessary for a genuine love relationship, God has allowed the enemy’s counterfeit government to manifest itself, while actively demonstrating the nature of His moral government of love in direct and striking contrast. Whereas the enemy grasps for power and domination, Christ, who possesses all power, does not dominate, determine, or coerce but “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant [doulos] . . . He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of

death, even the death of the cross” (Phil 2:7-9, NKJV). In this way, Christ, the unique Head of

the Church, “demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners,

Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). Consequently, God’s government of unselfish love is clearly

and supremely manifested.

Van Wyk Echo: This attitude of serving rather than grabbing power, is the essence of the worship institution of the Old Testament as well ever since Adam and Eve. There was no change at all when Moses built the Tabernacle following the example in heaven.

The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan

The Great Controversy originated with Satan’s direct attack against the nature and role of

Christ in heaven, seeking to displace Christ and exalt himself to be like God (Isa 14:12-14;

1 2


Ezek 28:12-19; cf. Rev 12:7-9). In the history of the Great Controversy, the usurping “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. 2 Cor 4:4), although defeated at the cross, continues his quest to exalt himself by dominating others. He attempts to replace God’s government of love with an alternative form of government that grasps for a domineering, self-seeking authority. He seeks to replace Christ as the Head (2 Thess 2:3-4), injuring both Christ, the sole Head of the true Church, and Christ’s corporate body, His Church.

Van Wyk Echo:  This attitude of domination in worship affairs could be seen in a number of places in the worship institution by Christ of which He was the Head in Old Testament times. Yet, there were also beautiful and shiny moments of happiness and glory when the humbled themselves before God. Note that the change was not from a male dominant feature to a female inclusive feature substituting the initial institution by Christ.

From the second century onward, post-Apostolic Christianity gradually implemented a system of church government that reflected Rome’s conception of authority as the power to arbitrarily command and coerce obedience and replaced the headship of Christ with the headship of mere humans. This counterfeit system of church governance was (1) hierarchical, based on a chain of command with a monarchical bishop at the “head” of the Church, with complete and final control over its affairs; (2) sacramental, meaning that the spiritual life of believers, including their very salvation, depended on ordained clergymen; (3) elitist (i.e., sacerdotal), meaning that the rite of ordination (laying on of hands) infused the clergy with special powers; and (4) headship-oriented, meaning that those who

received the rite of ordination were thereby married to their Church and thus took on “headship” roles in the Church in place of Christ the Head (“in persona Christi Capitis; cf. Vicarius Filii Dei, “in the place of the Son of God”).

Van Wyk Echo: Note that whether one do away with any titles, even in the Old Testament it was necessary to have a chain of command but it was based on spirituality not on human created scenarios.

This system of government has been implemented in various forms, amounting to the usurpation of Christ’s headship in the Church by mere humans. Indeed, this very system is that of the sea beast of Revelation 13-14 that was granted power and authority by the dragon (13:2, 4), counterfeits the resurrection of Christ (13:3), accepts the world’s worship along with the dragon (13:4, 8), blasphemes against God and His sanctuary, and exercises worldwide authority to persecute God’s people (13:5-7). This antichrist power which usurps the role of Christ on earth in keeping with the ancient attempt by Satan to replace Christ in heaven, seeks to destroy the everlasting gospel and ultimately commands obedience and enforces false worship. This culminates in severe persecution of those who refuse to worship the beast and his image, the remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus, those who place no confidence in mere humans with regard to their salvation (Rev 13:6-8; 14:6-12).

Van Wyk Echo: The soberness of the view, demands that one keep in mind that the Old Testament institutions by Christ was for the purpose of order, discipline, streamline actions of worship not to interrupt the growth of the believer but to uphold it.

The antichrist system of church government sets the stage for the climactic events of the final conflict in Revelation by, among other things: (1) asserting authority to appoint humans to Christ-replacing headship positions in the Church on earth (globally and

locally), (2) thereby claiming to uniquely possess authority to interpret and teach Scripture

and thus have the final word on all matters of doctrine and ecclesial practice while (3) wielding the spiritual power and authority to command and coerce obedience using both spiritual and civil tools.

Van Wyk Echo: While the Antichrist system of the Catholic Church is no doubt dangerous to God’s true religion, not everything the Antichrist speaks are wrong. Just like the temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness, the scheme of falsehood is solidified by prooftexts from the Bible that contains elements of truth in it.

This system of government stands in direct contrast to Christ’s headship and His teaching on the nature of the authority of Church leaders. Christ reflected God’s moral government of love by exemplifying service leadership (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45), including a kind of authority that does not seek to subject the wills of others or enforce obedience. Rather, it leads by the example of service and unselfish love, which draws (rather than compels) 3


others to willing service in love (Gal 5:13). All authority “in heaven and on earth” was given to Christ (Matt 28:18), but Christ does not remove graciously endowed free will and force His created human beings into obedience, but “loved [us] and gave Himself up for us” (Eph

5:2). The closest the Church comes to acts of enforcement is when it engages in discipline as a corporate body based on very clear teachings of Scripture. Such discipline is not the responsibility of any one person, or even a small group, but must be an action of at least the local congregation. Even then, such discipline does not result in coercion, but in restricting the individual from privileges of membership for a time in order to allow them to come to repentance and restoration (Matt 18:12-17; 1 Cor 5:5).

Van Wyk Echo:  As was expressed by Ellen G. White, the General Conference in Session decisions is the very Word of God. It should be respected as such according to the finding of certain papers online.

Church members (including but not limited to Church leaders) are called to follow Christ’s example of unselfish love [Eph 5:1]. They are to have the mind of Christ, which includes the willingness to humble oneself and take on the role of a slave (doulos; Phil 2:5-8), or servant (diakonos) of Christ (Matt 20:26), even as He humbled Himself to the point of death.


Van Wyk Echo:  The point of death is a very relevant one since the World Jurisdiction Philosophical Trend has focused on equity as a principle to the expense of some biblical doctrines, for example, Women Ordination, the role of females in the pulpit, the LGBTQH resurfacing of a millennia-old disease to allow transexualism not to be discriminated against biblically, and a number of similar issues. The cultural environment naturally produce persecution of faith as Oklahoma visitors from the California State Admin cannot get any funds for their trip there because they follow the biblical command of rejection of the LGBTQH anti-biblical stance supported and advocated in California. Woman ordination is the friend of LGBTQH. Birds of a feather issue.

Whereas the leaders in the Roman Empire of Christ’s time “lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them” (Matt 20:25), it is not to be so with God’s people but “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant [diakonos], and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave [doulos]” (Matt 20:26-27).

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Thus, the one who would be great is the one who is the slave [doulos] of all (Mark 10:44), and the “greatest among you shall be your servant [diakonos]” (Matt 23:11; cf. 9-12). The Bible outlines essential roles of leadership and authority in the Church. However, all leadership within the Church must be servant leadership. First Peter 5:1-3, 5-7 adroitly balances the affirmation of leadership within the Church with the humility that such leadership entails: “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ . . . shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. . . . You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (Cf. AA 359-60; DA 817). Accordingly, Church leaders should be humble servants. At the same time they should be respected and deeply appreciated for their diligent labor (1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; cf. Heb 13:7) even as they also show proper respect to others by demonstrating the mutual love and regard for others that is to take place among all Christians (1 Pet 2:17).ii



Van Wyk Echo: Notice the hierarchy involved here in an informal way if it is not formal. It is a hierarchy based on spiritual perspectives.

The authority of those leading the Church is conveyed to them by the Church. This authority is delegated by Christ to His Church and implemented through its representative system. Thus appointed leaders become stewards of a power that should be exercised on behalf of Christ and for the benefit of those they lead. The functionality of authority does not negate equality among the members given to the Church by Christ. As the Spirit leads the body of Christ, not just the few in leadership, those leading out should seek to allow

their decisions to be guided, insofar as possible, by the wisdom and insight of the group.

Van Wyk Echo:  As true as it is that authority of the church is implemented through its representative system, the requirement and spiritual success of this ideal set-up by God requires that men and women allocated for this role be according to the standards of conduct spelled out by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, to be spiritual, Bible defending and accepting believers rather than Bible rewriters. Populism can be skew and can create a skew position.


As 4


a Church, we thus give decision-making authority not to any single president or chairperson, but to committees, where those that lead the group are seeking the wisdom and, where possible, consensus of the group.

Van Wyk Echo: The consensus in Elijah’s time were utterly wrong. The mainstream thinking was skew and Jezebel did a good job in defending women rights as well as the LGBTQH rights of that time. There is a book written in German on the role of Sexual Pathology in the Ancient Near East citing cuneiform sources from the earliest times. The Gula priest was such a transsexual religious official. So if a skew lobby group succeeds to place key-persons in positions of dominating power, a skew position will become the consensus of the whole Division! But, if the other majority Divisions kept their sanity, this ‘wayward sheep Division’ has to succumb to the voice of the majority of the General Conference in Session as the Word of God in verity.

God’s remnant, then, will treasure a system of Church government, authority, and leadership that reflects (as much as is humanly possible) the ideal of God’s government of love, within which moral freedom is cherished and leaders are the humble servants of all, even as Christ gave Himself up for all. This very kind of humble servant leadership, grounded in love, was perfectly modeled by Christ who, as unique “head of the church . . . loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:23, 25), supremely exemplifying God’s character and moral government of love.

The Unique and Non-Transferable Headship of Christ

Scripture affirms that the Son is eternally equal with the Father and the Spirit (Col 2:9; Heb

1:3; Matt 28:19; John 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; 14:9; Phil 2:6; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-17; DA 469, 530; GC

495; 7ABC 437-40; TM 252; TA 209; RH April 5, 1906). Scripture also affirms the temporary voluntary functional subordination of Christ the Son in order to accomplish the salvation of humanity (John 5:19; 8:28, 54; 14:10, 28; 17:5; Phil 2:7-11; Col 1:18-20; Eph 1:23; Heb 1:8;

1 Cor 15:20-28; Isa 9:6-7; Dan 7:13-14; Rev 11:15; PP 34; RH, Oct 29, 1895; RH, June 15,

1905; FLB 76). The interpersonal relationships within the Trinity provide the ultimate

model of love and self-sacrifice for us. As such, they do not furnish a model for a top-down governmental structure for human leadership within the Church.

According to Scripture, Christ is the only Head of the Church and the human members of

Christ’s Church collectively (male and female) make up the body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23;

5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19; cf. 1 Cor 11:3; Col 2:10). Likewise, Ellen White counsels: “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (ST Jan. 27, 1890), and “Christ is the only Head of the church” (21MR 274; cf. DA 817, GC 51). Neither Scripture nor the writings of Ellen White apply the language of headship in the Church to anyone other than Christ. Further,

neither Scripture nor the writings of Ellen White endorse any transfer of the role of head in the home to roles within the Church body.

Van Wyk Echo:  This formulation of this sentence is quite surprising and may be in trouble with some references in the Bible.

Since Christ is the only Head of the Church, no other can be head of the Church. That is, headship in the Church is unique to Christ and is non-transferable. All those who would follow Christ’s method of ministry cannot do so by taking on His role of headship in the Church but by serving others in accordance with the “mind of Christ” (cf. Phil 2:5) and God’s moral government of love. Deviation from the unique headship of Christ in the Church follows the enemy’s practice of domination and counterfeit government, which directly contradicts and opposes God’s moral government of love.

Accordingly, the role of “head” in the home (Eph 5:23) is not transferable to the realm of the Church. Indeed, the idea that the role of “head” in the home would or should transfer to other realms is a fallacious non sequitur (that is, the transfer from one realm to another does not follow logically). For example, one’s role in the home obviously does not translate into a similar or analogous role in one’s workplace. 5

Van Wyk Echo:  One should guard not to confuse issues here. The headship of the man as master of his household does not always work when he goes to work he is servant of a company and a clerk in a huge banking organization. But, the clerk role does not eradicate his headship in his family. When the biblical examples do not provide adequate support otherwise than men doing religious functions, then one cannot at will adjust the biblical picture with modernized updates!

Beyond the logical problems inherent in the move from head of the home to headship in the

Church, two demonstrably biblical rationales exclude such a transfer. First, as already

noted, Christ is the only Head of the Church. Any attempt at proliferation of “heads” in the Church is thus unacceptable for it is a step toward usurping the unique headship role of Christ, who is the only mediator between God and humans. It is unscriptural to speak of any kind of headship in the Church apart from that of Christ.

No inspired writer teaches the headship of man over woman at the Creation. Rather, Genesis 1 teaches us that male and female participate equally in the image of God, with no hint of pre-fall subordination of one to the other (Gen 1:27). Genesis 2 reinforces Genesis 1 in this regard. Eve’s creation from Adam’s side shows that she is “to stand by his side as an equal" (Gen 2:21-22; PP 46). Although various interpretations of Gen 3:16 have recognized some kind of post-Fall disruption of this pre-Fall egalitarian ideal, the Bible consistently calls us back to God’s original plan for full equality without hierarchy (Song 7:10; Isa 65:17,

25; cf. Gen 1:29-30). Paul’s writings, though often misunderstood (2 Pet 3:16), maintain

this Eden model (Eph 5:21-23), affirming with the rest of Scripture the Gospel ideal of the ultimate restoration of the Eden model (cf. Matt 19:8; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:28). Ellen White also underlines this redemptive paradigm: “Woman should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal” (AH 231). “The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created” (18MR 380). “Infinite wisdom devised the plan of redemption, which places the race on a second probation by giving them another trial” (3T 484; cf. PP 58-59, and 1T 307-308).

Van Wyk Echo: I do not know why I want to call this whole paragraph a ‘Davidson paragraph’? Whatever equality positions Christ had in the Trinity before the Fall, He laid it down in order to function for the salvation of this world as the Son of God (Daniel 7) in subordinate position within an established hierarchy. He respected that hierarchy they created with Himself as one of them. He did not attempt to nullify thisworldly postlapsarian drama with prelapsarian equality since He pronounced the inequality after the Fall as a punishment for the woman’s role with Satan through the snake event.

Second, every member of the Church is part of the body of Christ, who is the One Head. Since each member of the Church (male or female) is a part of the body of Christ, a member cannot at the same time exercise headship in the Church. In the same way, since Christ is the unique Husband of the Church (Christ’s metaphorical bride), the members of the

Church cannot themselves be husbands of the Church but collectively, men and women together, are the bride of Christ. That the Church as family of God is analogous to human families only serves to suggest that humans should manifest the love of God in their family relationships even as Christ does in relationship to His bride.

Within the body of Christ, the only Head of the Church, every member of the Church body receives spiritual gifts: the Spirit gives to “each one [hekastos] individually just as He wills” (1 Cor 12:11). The Holy Spirit is given to all believers at the time of the end: “And afterwards, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28-30 NIV). Within this very context, Scripture emphatically excludes the notion of elitism within the Church body of Christ, proclaiming that “we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor 12:13-14; cf. Gal 3:28). Thus, no member of the body is

“any the less a part of the body” regardless of one’s role (1 Cor 12:15-16) and, indeed, those

that are deemed “less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor” (1 Cor 12:23). 6


In all this, every gift and ministry is nothing without love, for “the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13; cf. all of chapter 13; cf. Rom 12:3-10; Eph 4:11-16). Here again, the unselfish love that is central to God’s moral government should be reflected in humble service to one another within Christ’s body and bride, the Church.

This is reflected in Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief No. 14, “Unity in the Body of Christ,” which reads in part: “The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.”

Van Wyk Echo: The apostles Paul and Peter were well aware of the new creation everyone now shares in Christ and yet did Paul made strong statements about the role of females in the church at Corinth. It takes a female lobbyist approach [feminist trend echo] to make distinctions between male and females a subject of division among the unity of the whole church.

There is no third category between the Head and body of Christ, or between the corresponding bridegroom (Christ) and bride (the Church). The minister is not to be separate from the body of Christ, but is likewise a member of Christ’s body and thus plays a non-elitist role in service to and alongside the other members that corresponds to the individual’s Spirit-bestowed gifts and accords with the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet

2:5-9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; cf. Ex 19:5-6). Because it is the Spirit who gives gifts to each one (male

and female) as He wills (1 Cor 12:11; cf. 12, 18, 19, 27-31; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:18; Rom

12:4-8; Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:10), the Church confers no spiritual powers or gifts on anyone

but merely recognizes the gifts that God has granted and facilitates corresponding opportunities for ministry within the body of Christ. Leadership ministries within the Church are facilitated by the Church body as a recognition of the particular Spirit-given gifts and characteristics of servant leadership that reflect God’s moral government of

unselfish love (cf. Phil 2:5-8). In this way, both individually and collectively the Church is to

complete its mission of proclaiming the Three Angels’ Messages and revealing God’s character of love, the last revelation of God’s mercy to the world (COL 415).

Van Wyk Echo:  As long as the recognition follows the templates provided by the Old and The New Testaments, there should not be any problems. Problems starts when Europe wants to lament that their Umwelt demands that they adapt to modern society on the issue of Woman ordination and equality in the workplace. Those who are in the mission of God is not in a workplace but in service for God, following not labor laws but God’s laws. Labor laws of countries are subordinate to the demands and templates of the rules of God in His revelation.

In sum, any form of headship claimed by a mere human, whether male or female, usurps the sole headship of Christ over the Church. Christian service, including Church leadership, is to reflect but never usurp Christ’s leadership.

Van Wyk Echo:  The unique role of men in the Old and New Testament in the Worship sphere stands in the backdrop of the great punishment allocated to the female because of her role in the Fall of humans. The men who were the head of the worship in the Old and New Testaments did not usurp the headship from Christ but carried out a scenario that Christ Himself provided for them.

Thus, while Christ’s manner of leadership is to be reflected by believers, Christ’s particular role of leadership is unique and not to be encroached upon by any mere human. Christ alone is the Head of the Church body, of which all Christians are members and submitted to Him.

No human leader, then, may rightfully assume a headship role within the Church; the highest level to which any leaders can “ascend” corresponds directly to the depths to which they are willing to descend in loving and humble service, giving themselves for Christ’s body even as Christ gave himself for his body and bride, his beloved Church, the object of “His supreme regard” (2SAT 215).

Affirmations and Denials

1. We affirm that there is only one Head of the Church, Christ, and this headship in the Church is non-transferable and inimitable. Thus, Christ’s particular role of 7


leadership is unique.

2. We deny that any human can rightly assume a headship role within the Church.

3. We affirm that leadership in the Church should be modeled after Christ’s servant

leadership and grounded in love, with the recognition that Christ’s manner of leadership is to be reflected by Christian leaders.

4. We deny any Church government that results in sacramental, elitist, and headship-

oriented leadership, which are counterfeits of Christ’s moral government of love and usurp His unique role and authority as Head of the Church (His body) and husband

of the Church (His wife).

5. We affirm that Church leaders possess stewardship responsibilities of the affairs of the Church, carrying out the decisions of the Church made in committee and business sessions.

Van Wyk Echo:  This includes the General Conference majority vote in Session as template for the Division, provided that it is biblical and not cultural orientated.

6. We deny that any mere human is invested with final decision-making authority in regards to Church teaching, ritual, or doctrine.

7. We affirm the priesthood of all believers along with the high priesthood of Christ and that no other mediator is needed between God and humans.

8. We deny any elevation of Church leaders as mediators between God and humans or

as head of or in the Church.

i Unless indicated otherwise, the biblical text is quoted from the New American Standard Bible (1995).

ii It is worth noting that some statements that refer to leadership roles within the Church use language that many English versions translate as “rule.” For example, 1 Tim 5:17 states: “The elders who rule [proestōtes from the root proistemi] well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (cf. the similar use of this root in Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 3:4-5,

12). The root proistemi, here translated “rule,” literally refers to those who “stand before,” beneficially leading and ministering to the community, and should not be confused with some kind of monarchical rulership or sovereignty. In the LXX it refers to the household “ministry” of a servant of the prince (2 Sam

13:17; cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12) and the noun form of this root, prostatis, refers to Phoebe’s ministry as diakonos

(Rom 16:1-2).