AP

David Woolcott (DW) recently submitted a piece to AP in response to Mark Powell’s (MP) article titled ‘Presbyterian Men and Women’. It is our hope and prayer that this response will lead to greater edification and understanding of the issues to the wider church (Prov. 27:17; 2 Tim. 2:24).

DW: Mark offers five points from Don Carson against interpreting submission in Ephesians 5:21 in a reciprocal way.

“First, in the Greek text the verb “to submit” never has to do with mutual submission anywhere in the New Testament. It always has to do with submission in some kind of order, rank, or structure, without exception.”

Carson’s first statement assumes Ephesians 5:21 does not mean mutual submission which is not evidence that it doesn’t. Further, 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 are two verses where submission is mentioned that do not specify an order, rank or structure.

MP: First, Carson is not assuming a conclusion but instead arguing that Ephesians 5:21 does not mean what egalitarians routinely assume that it does. Carson’s point is that the verb ‘to submit’ is never used anywhere in the NT to refer to ‘mutual submission’ so why would we understand the meaning of this text here differently?

Second, contrary to what DW claims, 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 do “specify order, rank and structure”. These verses clearly define how one gender relates to another gender within the church. i.e. a woman is not to have authority over a man in the body of Christ.

DW: Carson’s second point is,

“the expression ‘one another’ in verse 21… though it can be perfectly reciprocal, it may or may not be depending on the context…”

Carson’s point is that everyone cannot kill everyone, and so ‘one another’ is never ‘perfectly reciprocal’ (Rev.6:4).

MP: DW has misunderstood what Carson says. Carson specifically states that the expression “can be perfectly reciprocal…depending on the context”. And yet DW states that Carson is arguing that it “is never perfectly reciprocal”. This is a misrepresentation of what Carson says. The question then is: “Do the Scriptures teach that husbands and wives should take turns in submitting to one another?” Carson’s conclusion is, no they should not.

DW: Carson’s third point relates to the flow of the Ephesians passage and concludes, “Part of what it means, then, to be filled with the Spirit is to have an attitude of submission to one another.” Carson understands Paul’s description of the household code as Paul saying, “let me show you what this submission looks like”. Yet, there is no indication that Paul limits submission to only wives of husbands any more than he limits sacrificial love from Ephesians 5:1-2 to only husbands to wives.

MP: Carson rightly argues that there are indeed such limits within the text of Scripture itself. As Peter T. O’Brien explains: “While the household code is introduced by a plea for mutual submissiveness, the submissiveness enjoined in the code itself is not mutual. As in the parallel code in Col. 3:18-4:1, wives are directed to be subject to their husbands, children to be obedient to their parents, and slaves to their masters, but the submissiveness is not reciprocated: husbands are told to love their wives, parents to bring up their children wisely, and master to treat their slaves considerately.”[1]

DW: Fourth, Carson references ‘head’, saying, 

“Despite the efforts of some to make head mean something like source, it has been shown again and again and again that when head is in the singular in first-century Greek, and used metaphorically as here, what it means is to exercise some kind of authority over another.”

Carson’s point runs contrary to evidence found in Biblical Greek Lexicons that reference ‘head’ to mean ‘source’ and not ‘authority’ (E.g., Liddell & Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon). Also, in Ephesians 4:15 we have a singular metaphorical use of ‘head’ that cannot mean ‘to exercise some kind of authority over another’. It states that we will “grow up into him who is the Head, that is Christ.” Christ does have authority over us (Ephesians 1:22-23), but this meaning does not make sense of ‘head’ in Ephesians 4:15. Head and body metaphors often address unity not authority, such as Ephesians 4:15-16 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-27.

MP: DW’s reference here is highly misleading and claims far too much. This is because there has only ever been one Greek lexicon which has suggested ‘source’ as a possible meaning for the word ‘head’, and that is the one which he refers to. As Wayne Grudem states, “All the other standard Greek-English lexicons for the New Testament gave meanings such as ‘leader, ruler, person in authority’ and made no mention of the meaning ‘source’.”[2]

What’s more, after personally contacting the current editor to the supplement of the lexicon which DW references, Grudem writes,

“But now the editor of the only lexicon that mentioned the meaning ‘source’ in any connection says that kephalé “does seem frequently to denote leader or chief…and here it seems perverse to deny authority” and that “The supposed sense of ‘source’ of course does not exist.”[3] 

DW: Finally, Carson says,

“Occasionally wives are told to love their husbands; they are always told to submit to them. Men are always told to love their wives. They are never told to submit to them. Those are just the facts.”

Yet all Christians are called to submit to each other and to love each other. John Calvin with specific reference to Eph 5:21 says,

“God has bound us so strongly to each other, that no man ought to endeavour to avoid subjection; and where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered. I do not except even kings and governors, whose very authority is held for the service of the community. It is highly proper that all should be exhorted to be subject to each other in their turn.”

MP: As I have already argued above though, submission is not reciprocal but always to a certain authority. [4] Hence, while husbands are never told to submit to their wives they are commanded to submit to governing authorities (1 Pet. 2:11-25; Rom. 13:1-7). As I referenced in my article—but which DW does not respond to—Kevin De Young has also written:

“The word for submission (hypotasso) is never used in the New Testament as a generic love and respect for others. The word hypotasso occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament outside of Ephesians 5:21, always with reference to a relationship where one party has authority over another….Nowhere in in the New Testament does hypostasso refer to the reciprocal virtues of patience, kindness, and humility. It is always for one party or person or thing lining up under the authority of another.”[5]

DW: Mark quotes Grudem to support the claim that the prophetic ministries of Miriam, Deborah and Huldah were not public. He suggests women prophets always prophesied privately or prophesied to women.

There is no restriction shown in Scripture of the roles of these women. When Miriam “took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing” (Exodus 15:20-21) it does not tell us that when she prophesied it was only to women or privately.

Likewise with Deborah, there is no evidence that Deborah spoke to Barak in private. The text moves from describing Deborah’s very public leadership role “under the Palm of Deborah” to stating that she summoned Barak. The only location indicated in the text is under the Palm of Deborah. We have no reason to believe that Deborah prophesied in private or only to women.

Grudem says that Huldah, “gave her prophecy privately to a small group of five messengers from the king.” The text is clear, Huldah prophesied in the presence of 5 men, who were there on behalf of the King, who was enquiring on behalf of “the remnant in Israel and Judah about what is written in this book that has been found” (2 Chronicles 34:21). There is nothing private or women only about this prophecy that was sought by the King on behalf of the nation!

MP: I am not trying to say definitively that women never served in a public way – either as prophets or as leaders. Sometimes they did. My point is, as I argue below, that this was not normative and indeed was part of God’s judgment upon his people. Once again, this is precisely the problem with the GAA Discussion Paper on Men and Women which uses obscure descriptive passages of Scripture in a prescriptive way. For example, in regard to the figure of Deborah in the book of Judges Grudem writes:

Judges 4:4 suggests some amazement at the unusual nature of the situation in which a woman actually has to judge Israel, because it piles up a string of redundant words to emphasize that Deborah is a woman. Translating the Hebrew text literally, the verse says, “And Deborah, a woman, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she was judging Israel at the time.” Something is abnormal, something is wrong—there are no men to function as judge! This impression is confirmed when we read of Barak’s timidity and the rebuke implied in his subsequent loss of glory: “the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Judges 4:9).[6]

DW: Mark says that “The rare occasions of women leading the people of Israel actually functioned not as an example to be followed but a rebuke to… for instance, the prophet Isaiah writes: “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them” (Isaiah 3:12).”

This is the only verse to make a statement such as this about youths or women and it is often used to discredit female leadership. Marg Mowczko counters this claim with the following which also aligns with the broader passage:

“The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, the word can also be read as noshim (נשים), which means “creditors.” The Aramaic Targum Jonathan of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Translation (NET) translates the pertinent phrase as “creditors rule over them.”[4]

The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. (It is these later vowel points that distinguish nashim from noshim.) The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a, translated into English, reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.”

Extortion is alluded to in the verses directly following verse 12 where God condemns those who have plundered and oppressed the poor.” (https://margmowczko.com/isaiah-3_12-women-leaders/)

MP: This reference not only offers a highly controversial, but completely novel, interpretation of the passage in Isaiah. What’s more, it is also from a website which states that its explicit goal is “exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism”. It is putting a pre-conceived paradigm over the text of Scripture.

I consulted all of the major academic commentaries on Isaiah 3:12 and significantly, all of them view the passage as a rebuke to female leadership:

“Women possibly refers to the royal harem. If the king was a spoiled brat then likely enough his wives were numerous and manipulative, fitting what we sense of the reign of Ahaz. The reference may be to dominant and demanding women, the ‘power behind the throne’ and not only in the palace!” (J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah)

“Some commentators believe that there is a reference to Ahaz’s youth and perhaps some undue influence of the queen mother here. But the context gives no reason to make this specific application. It is much more likely that a general figure is being used here to express Isaiah’s contempt for men who are not leading.” (John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39)

“YHWH’s concern is with “my people. He echoes their laments: “Boys are their taskmaster. Women rule over them.” In a patriarchal society, the lack of mature male leadership is considered a sign of the total breakdown of social order and decency in the face of the devastations of war. No matter how strong the walls, if over a period of time one loses this many soldiers and leaders, the city will fall from within.” (John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33)

The Lord brought his case against the elders and leaders who were entrusted with the tasks of maintain true justice in God’s land. They were supposed to lead God’s chosen people to follow God’s instructions; they were supposed to care for his precious vineyard. Part of their responsibility was to defend the poor and helpless (1:17), people who for economic or social reasons could not defend themselves against powerful landlords and skilful lawyers. Instead they allowed young boys to rise to the throne and permitted women (maybe the queen mother or women in the harem) to rule over the people(3:12). The youths (young boys) and women could be interpreted literally or one could view this as a sarcastic remark comparing the inept male leaders to young boys or women.” (Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39)

“Both youths (lit. ‘to act like a child’) and women were seen as inexperienced, thus as leaders they were prone to falling into excesses and abuses. The youths are said to oppress their people, a word generally used of a foreign nation lording it over a subservient nation. The phrase women rule over them suggests domination; here the author could be remembering the sad consequences of Athaliah’s ruthless rule (2 Kgs 11:1-20).” (Paul D. Wegner, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary)

DW: Finally, Mark believes that Junia was not an Apostle saying, “the office of apostleship clearly did not include women.” The way Romans 16:7 reads without a pre-conceived patriarchal construct would be that Junia, a woman, was an apostle, and valued by Paul as such.

MP: I believe that the opposite is actually the case. That is, it is only with the rise of modern feminism that people have seriously suggested that any of the apostles were women. This is not a “pre-conceived patriarchal construct” but the consistent witness of the church down throughout the centuries.

I am surprised that DW tries to argue that Romans 16:7 supports female apostleship. I briefly discussed the matter in my original article but it is worth adding a number substantial arguments against this egalitarian position which Grudem makes.[7]

1. The name that is spelled iounian in the Greek text of Romans 16:7 could be either a man’s name or a woman’s name simply according to the spelling.
2. In light of the most recent research in Greek grammar, the verse means, “Greet Andronicus and Junia(s)…well-known to the apostles.”
3. There is very little comment on this name in the first four hundred years after the New Testament, and the comments are mixed regarding the gender of the name.
4. However, evidence from Latin seems to favour the view that this was a woman’s name, Junia.
5. The word translated “apostles” could just mean ‘church messengers’ here as it does elsewhere in Paul’s writings.
6. In conclusion, the feminist claim that there was an apostle named Junia is built upon one uncertainty (the gender of the name) on top of another uncertainty (the meaning of ‘apostle’ in this verse) on top of an improbably meaning of a phrase (‘well known among’ rather than “well known to’).

All of which leads Grudem to conclude: “This is a highly speculative and flimsy foundation upon which to case any argument. It carries little weight against the clear teaching of exclusive male eldership and male apostleship in the rest of the New Testament.”[8]

DW: Eldership is one role referenced in the New Testament. These roles bring certain responsibilities and accountability but not all of them come with the power and authority we might assume. Our pre-occupation with authority is often at odds with Jesus’ words and example (Matthew 20:25-28, John 13:1-17, Philippians 2:3-8).

MP: I find this last objection the least compelling of all. First, all Christian leadership comes with “power and authority”. That’s precisely what elders are called as Christ’s under-shepherds to do. i.e. To rule over his church. It is why the writer of Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account” (Hebrews 13:7). And it is also why the apostle says that elders are not to “lord it over” or “domineer” those under their charge (1 Peter 5:3).

Further, this is not about being pre-occupied with authority but being faithful to what the Scriptures reveal. All Christian leaders are to use their authority and power to serve (Mark 10:42-45).

• Mark Powell

[1] Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar, 1984), 383. Emphasis added.

[2] Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 590.

[3] Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 590.

[4] See in particular Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephalé (“Head”) Mean “Source” Or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal No. 6.1 (Spring 1985), 38-59.

[5] Kevin DeYoung, Men and Women in the Church: A Short, Biblical & Practical Introduction (Crossway, 2021). Emphasis added.

[6] Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 134. See also this article by Scott LaPierre. https://www.scottlapierre.org/deborah-in-the-bible/

[7] See Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 224-227.

[8] Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 227.