AP

In this final instalment, AP has decided to publish an exchange between Mark Powell and Dave Woolcott regarding some of the theological underpinnings of the 2023 GAA Report on Men and Women. For context, this is a follow up to an exchange between Mark and David, the original articles which can be found here and here. We hope and pray that this is edifying rather than quarrelsome (2 Timothy 2:24).

Dave Woolcott: I am grateful to Mark for his willingness to respond to my critique of his article concerning men and women. My aim is not to change another’s view or see a specific governance structure put in place. Rather I would hope that we can more greatly appreciate each other’s perspectives so that we might all move closer to truth and more mature in love.

Mark Powell: I too am grateful for the thoughtful interaction regarding this issue. This is an important topic and it’s my hope that the exchange between David and myself helps everyone to better think through the issues. However, I don’t think we are both correct and those reading our exchange should prayerfully consider which arguments best reflect the teaching of God’s Word. The implications of our positions both theologically and practically are profound.

Dave Woolcott: I critiqued the five points from Don Carson against interpreting submission in Ephesians 5:21 in a reciprocal way. Carson’s first reason for submission not being reciprocal in Ephesian 5:21 is because, “in the Greek text the verb “to submit” never has to do with mutual submission anywhere in the New Testament.” This is not evidence or a reason, but a claim. It is a claim that rests on an assumption.

Mark claimed that 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 do“specify order, rank and structure” and that they “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.”There is no order, rank or structure specified in these passages. Neither passage says what the authority is, if indeed there is an authority. Indicating that a woman does not have authority over a man is a lack of an authority structure.

Mark Powell: Despite what DW claims, Carson’s statement that the verb ‘to submit’ never has to do with mutual submission in the New Testament is a conclusion based on the exegetical evidence—or in this case, the lack thereof—to be found in the New Testament. Where is a single example of the verb ‘to submit’ being used in a reciprocal way? Carson’s point is that it simply does not exist and hence it is up to Dave to prove otherwise rather than simply claim the opposite to be the case.

Following on from this, despite what Dave says, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 do refer to an ordained pattern which God has designed to exist between men and women. Anyone reading those passages can discern from the plain reading of the text, that one application of this is that a woman should not ‘teach or exercise authority’ over a man in the church. The principle is unambiguous and undergirds the broader paradigm of headship and submission. i.e. the home is a microcosm of the church.

As an egalitarian, Dave might still want to argue that women should be encouraged to preach in mixed congregations as well as be ordained to the eldership (as they currently still are in NSW) but this goes against the clear teaching of Scripture as well as the practice of the Presbyterian Church in the rest of Australia and the wider church won through its history.

Dave Woolcott: My conclusion with Carson’s second point stands. Carson is arguing that ‘one another’ can be perfectly reciprocal, depending on the context. Whether the context supports perfect reciprocity is not resolved.

Mark Powell: Dave has badly misrepresented Don Carson’s argument here. What Dave originally wrote was: “Carson’s point is that everyone cannot kill everyone, and so ‘one another’ is never ‘perfectly reciprocal’.” However, what Carson said was that the verb ‘one another’ (as opposed to the verb ‘to submit’) can be ‘perfectly reciprocal’, it just all depends on the context. Something which we will consider more in just a moment.

More to the point though, Dave still hasn’t addressed the issue as to where Paul is teaching mutual submission in this passage. He has assumed that it does, but he hasn’t proven that this is an example of the phrase ‘one another’ being used in a reciprocal way.

Dave Woolcott: But this leads us to the third point where Mark defends Carson by quoting O’Brien, “While the household code is introduced by a plea for mutual submissiveness, the submissiveness enjoined in the code itself is not mutual…” There is nothing in the passage to suggest that the “general plea for mutual submission” is trumped by the “submissiveness enjoined in the code itself”. The emphasis on wives submitting does not suggest that husbands are now released from the general plea.

Mark Powell: To be honest, Dave’s argument here confuses the issue because he refuses to see the connection between Carson’s third point and that of his fourth. As I mentioned above, the verb ‘one another’ can sometimes be reciprocal, but it must be decided by the context.[1]

However, then when Carson goes on to give the required exegetical evidence as well as reason—rather than simply unsubstantiated ‘claim’ as Dave asserts—then this is summarily dismissed out of hand.

As Peter O’Brien states, the context favours Ephesians 5:21 functioning as a ‘heading’ to the rest of the chapter. It shows how headship and submission is expressed in the numerous relationships we all find ourselves in.

Carson’s conclusion is the one which still stands, and Dave doesn’t even attempt to answer it. i.e. Why are wives commanded to submit to their husbands, but husbands are never commanded to submit to their wives?

Dave Woolcott: Regarding Carson’s fourth point Mark says my comment 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…”

Liddell and Scott, the lexicon in question, is exhaustive and well regarded. Grudem says that “this lexicon has been the standard lexicon for all of ancient Greek for over 150 years.” (Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, p178) It is not the only one as claimed, e.g. Mounce’s lexicon has “point of origin”. If you want to read a response to Grudem’s work, then Cerwin has a thorough and academic article which can be found here.

Mark Powell: Of course Liddell and Scott is a respected lexicon, but Dave completely fails to engage with the substantial argumentation which Grudem brings against their interpretation. In particular, after personally contacting the current editor to the supplement of the lexicon in question, Grudem writes:

“But now the editor of the only lexicon that mentioned the meaning ‘source’ in any connection says that kephale “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.”[2] 

It seems that Dave is so desperate for the term ‘head’ to mean ‘source’ and not ‘authority’ that he is unwilling to acknowledge the most well attested and obvious meaning of the term. Hence, his sole reference is to an egalitarian website whose purpose is explicitly dedicated “To explore the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism”.

Even if the term ‘head’ might possibly mean ‘source’, this is not what Paul means by the term in the New Testament. When it comes to the roles of husbands and wives, the Bible teaches that husbands are the head of their wives in the sense of having authority over them. And authority which they have been given by God to sacrificially serve.

Dave Woolcott: Mark notes my lack of response to the De Young quote. I had supplied a quote from Calvin that holds the opposite view to De Young. I would love to hear Mark’s thoughts on Calvin.

Mark Powell: Yes, Mark still notes Dave’s lack of response to the Kevin DeYoung quote, both in response to his original article as well as Dave’s response to Mark’s response! Once again, it seems that if an argument is brought forth which refutes Dave’s position he simply fails to engage with it. Just in case people missed it, this is what Kevin DeYoung wrote:

“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.”

If Calvin is saying that a husband is to practise mutual submission then I would have to sadly disagree with his conclusion. I value Calvin’s teaching more than any other, but that does not mean that he’s infallible. After all, he’s not an evangelical version of the pope! It’s also precisely why the Lord Jesus Christ exhorted us to call not man on earth ‘teacher’ (Matthew 23:8). Just because Calvin says something doesn’t mean it’s always, automatically, true.

Dave Woolcott: I challenged Mark on his claim that Mirriam, Huldah and Deborah only prophesied to women or men in private, which was unanswered. Mark appealed to Grudem about Deborah who claims that 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… This impression is confirmed when we read of Barak’s timidity and the rebuke implied in his subsequent loss of glory… (Judges 4:9).”

There is no string of redundant words. Grudem suggests something is wrong with the passage and concludes, “there are no men to function as judge!” Grudem makes much of little and his conclusion is imported. Barak’s ‘timidity’, is assumed and not in the text. There is no “rebuke implied” to Barak. Barak models a man willing to work graciously with who God ordained, even when he will not get the glory.

Mark Powell: I had to go back and read what I wrote again because I thought I had specifically answered Dave’s point here. After double-checking I’m quite frankly bemused to hear that his point about the public/private nature of Mirriam, Deborah and Huldah’s ministries was ‘unanswered’. Here is what I wrote and I’ll let readers decide for themselves whether or not I answered his objection…

‘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.’

Dave Woolcott: Mark describes my quote from Marg Mowczko as a “highly controversial, but completely novel, interpretation of the passage in Isaiah…”Yet, this interpretation dates to before Christ with the support of more than one translation. Even if wrong, the verse can still be understood in ways that are not an indictment on female leadership as per Mark’s quote from Alec Motyer.

Mark Powell: Just because someone said something a long time ago doesn’t mean it’s true. My point was that I cannot find any academic commentary on the book of Isaiah today which interprets 3:12 in the way which Dave is suggesting. I recognise that it has been understood that way at times, but this is not the consensus view, and that’s significant. I also cannot understand his point about Alec Motyer because he explicitly says: “The reference may be to dominant and demanding women…” That definitely sounds like an indictment on a certain type of female leadership to me! In short, Isaiah 3:12 is an indictment on female leadership, as the plain reading of the text makes clear.

Dave Woolcott: Mark quotes Grudem on Junia, “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.” Yet Bruce Metzger points out, “the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone, whereas the male name is unattested anywhere” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition 475).

Grudem then claims that ‘the most recent research in Greek grammar, the verse means, “Greet Andronicus and Junia(s)…well-known to the apostles.” The research alluded to is one article written in 2001. This would make Grudem’s argument both novel and controversial. Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker assumed Junia a woman apostle,

“And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great tribute this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the wisdom of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” (Chrysostom, Homily 31 on Romans)

Grudem claims that “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.” Contrary to this, “Origen (c. 185–254), Chrysostom (c. 344/345–407), Jerome (c. 345–419), Ambrosiaster (c. 379), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393–c. 458) all believed Junia a woman (C.f. https://margmowczko.com/junias-junia-julia-romans-167/).

Grudem claims “apostles” could just mean ‘church messengers’ here as it does elsewhere in Paul’s writings”. Paul uses the term ‘apostles’ 34 times with the translation ‘messenger’ only twice. If Grudem is correct with all his assertions, then his translation would state an unlikely greeting from Paul to two men “who were well known by the church messengers.”

Mark Powell: There is an underlying assumption behind Dave’s point here that women were in fact apostles (followed up by another reference to Dave’s favourite egalitarian website). This would make them the members of the most authoritative office in the founding of the church, even though the 2023 GAA Report correctly believes they were not (i.e. Ephesians 2:20).

The question of Junia’s gender is of course, hotly debated. My own conclusion is consistent with that of most scholars: ‘she’ was in fact a man. For those who are interested in all of the reasons why, see Esther Yue L. Ng, ‘Was Junia(s) in Rom. 16:7 a Female Apostle? And So What?’ JETS 63.3 (2020), 517-33.[3]

Dave Woolcott: Contrary to Mark’s final claims, Christ, not elders, rule over His church (Eph 1:21-23, Colossians 1:15-20, WCF 25). Christian leadership is not about power and authority, but rather roles and responsibilities. Indeed, Hebrews 13:7 does not mention authority. It could be rendered, “trust and have confidence in those who guide or go before you”. It speaks of the roles and the responsibilities, not an ‘authority over’. Nowhere does scripture state that church leaders or elders have ‘authority’ over another, other than to speak of it in terms of an authority to build others up (2 Cor 10:8).

Mark claims Christian leaders are to use their “authority and power to serve (Mark 10:42-45)”, yet in these verses Jesus says, regarding exercising authority over others – “not thus, however, shall it be among you. Instead, whoever desires to be great among you will become your servant.”

Mark Powell: If leaders do not have authority then why are believer’s commanded to ‘submit’ to them? (Heb. 13:17) What’s more, as I said in my original article, ‘…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, it is also why those who are younger are told to submit to their elders (1 Peter 5:7).

 In conclusion, Dave has brought nothing new to the table which brings the debate forward. His egalitarian arguments have all been raised and ably answered by many others before me. What this debate demonstrates though, is the serious theological and practical consequences which will occur if the 2023 GAA Report is adopted.

– Mark Powell

[1] As Carson himself is known for only semi-humorously saying, ‘A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.’

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

[3] Note also that Ng states, “This consensus view on Junia is shared by both egalitarians and complementarians regarding women’s roles. For the former, Linda Belleville and Lynn Cohick are notable examples. For concurring complementarians, see Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Tomans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 921- 22; Andreas Kostenberger, “Women in the Pauline Mission,” in Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson, eds., The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 229.” Page 520, footnote 12.