AP

Men and Women in the Bible: Continued

I am grateful to Mark Powell 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 to 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 mature in love.

I critiqued the five points from Don Carson who is against interpreting submission in Ephesians 5:21 in a reciprocal way. Carson’s first reason for submission not being reciprocal in Ephesians 5:21 is that “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.

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. 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.

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. Gruden says: “this lexicon has been the standard lexicon for all of ancient Greek for over 150 years” (Biblical foundations for Manhood and Womanhood p.178). 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 (https://margmowczko.com/wp-content/uploads/Cervin-ao_does_kephale_mean_source_or_authority.pdf).

Mark notes my lack of response to the De Young quote. Calvin holds the opposite view to De Young. I would love to hear Mark’s thoughts on Calvin.

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 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 Marks quote from Alec Motyer .

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 p.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 was 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.”

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.”

– Dave Woolcott