I chose to interact with Mark Powell’s article ‘Presbyterian Men and Women’ through Australian Presbyterian (AP). I adhered to the guidelines for publication including the 1200-word limit. This was a challenge! I decided to offer a final response here without word limits.
I hope I have represented Mark and the people that he quoted fairly. I want to speak truth. Love delights in the truth. I apologise if my behaviour has been anything but loving and honouring.
In his original article Mark quoted Don Carson saying, “Don Carson explained in a talk at the Katoomba Men’s Convention gave[sic] five reasons against interpreting submission in a reciprocal way”.
I do not know if Mark is right in saying these are five reasons. If they are, each reason should stand on its own. If they do not, then perhaps Carson intended it to be 5 parts of a single argument. This makes a difference. For example, Carson’s first point claims that one reason for not believing Eph 5:21 is reciprocal is because there is no such use in Scripture. Mark states that this claim is based on exegetical evidence, but Carson does not supply this in his first point. It is merely a statement akin to “it isn’t because it isn’t”.
Mark asks for “a single example of the verb ‘to submit’ being used in a reciprocal way”. The first and most obvious one is Ephesians 5:21. The verb is ‘to submit’ and it is followed by the pronoun, ‘one another’, which is a ‘reciprocal pronoun’. There is another example of this in 1 Peter 5:5 which says, “Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” This verse has the verb ‘to submit’ connected to a ‘reciprocal noun’ much like it is in Ephesians 5:21-22.
As demonstrated above, there is more than one example in the New Testament of ‘to submit’ being used in a reciprocal way. This usage to also reflected in writing contemporary to the New Testament. Examples that range from 200 years before Christ to some time after Christ can be found here.
Mark continues to claim that 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11 “specify order, rank and structure”. In his second response he says,
“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…”
Telling a woman that she is not permitted to teach and domineer does not specify an order, rank or structure. It is prohibiting a structure/order. Paul lists in both passages things that he permits, such as a woman being taught, and being submissive, but Paul does not outline under what authority these things happen. It could be to teachers, husbands, Christ or something/someone else. We are not told. Mark is welcome to point to who/what the text states these women are submitting to which will clarify the order/structure for us.
Mark says,
“As an egalitarian, Dave might still want to argue that women should be encouraged to preach… as the practice of the Presbyterian Church in the rest of Australia and the wider church won through its history.”
I do not describe myself as an egalitarian. I believe that women should be allowed to preach if they fit the New Testament model. I seek biblical truth, not egalitarianism. For Mark scripture is clear, women should not preach or be elders, but he fails to provide biblical evidence. He simply points us to what happens in other parts of the PCA and the wider church through history.
Mark has claimed that I have badly misrepresented Carson’s argument with the second point. Again, I apologise for the lack of clarity in my first response. I did not intentionally misquote or misrepresent Carson, and I am sorry that what I wrote has done this. I believe my conclusion still stands, if Mark has himself represented Carson accurately and this second point is a stand-alone reason for not understanding submission as reciprocal in Eph 5:21. Carson’s point provides no evidence of the context determining a lack of reciprocity.
Mark continues this second point saying,
“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.”
I thought it was very clear. ‘Submit to one another’ is reciprocal. It is explicit in the passage. I do not have to demonstrate why the plain reading is treated as such. As for O’Brien, it is no use claiming that the following verses cancel or narrow the encouragement to submit to one another without evidence.
Mark continues,
“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.”
Mark seems to now read Carson’s points as interconnected and supporting each other. Perhaps they are, but as I explained earlier, this is different to the way he presented them and the way I have been dealing with them. I do not think this impacts the outcome but perhaps it makes sense of some of the confusion.
Mark does not show where the context explicitly backs up a non-reciprocal reading. That is the whole point of the discussion around Carson and O’Brien. Mark claims that,
“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.”
I still see no evidence. All that has been offered is an understanding of the passage that rests on assumptions. Which verse tells us that Paul is intending only wives to submit that cancels out what is clearly in the text, ‘submit to one another’? Which words in which verse?
Mark highlights what 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.”
It is O’Brien’s claim that Ephesians 5:21 acts as a heading, saying the context favours this. He has given no reason from grammar or syntax for us to believe it serves as a ‘heading’. Can he point to other ‘headings’ in Ephesians that might help support his theory? What in the context favours this reading?
Mark says,
“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?”
This is a question rather than a conclusion. To answer, I can put forward reasons husbands are never separately told to submit to their wives, but answering this question does not determine whether husbands are included in ‘submit to one another’.
My answer would not be evidence but rather a ‘possible explanation’. I imagine there is a reason why husbands are not separately told to submit to their wives, but Paul does not say why. It is an argument from silence.
I could also ask Carson similar questions to answer, such as “Why are husbands never told they have authority over their wives using the ordinary term for ‘authority’?” “Why are husbands never told to ensure their wives submit?” “Why are wives never told to love their husbands outside of the context of also loving others?” There might be reasons, and Carson might even be able to present some, but these questions cannot be used as a conclusive argument as they are an argument from silence. Carson has asked a question that cannot be conclusively answered, and Mark seems to think that if I do not answer, Carson is proved correct.
To return to the issue of ‘head’, Mark responds,
“Of course Liddell and Scott is a respected lexicon… In particular, after personally contacting the current editor to the supplement of the lexicon in question…”
In highlighting that Liddell and Scott (LSJ) is a respected lexicon I was countering Grudem who refers to other lexicons as ‘standard lexicons’, suggesting that LSJ is not. I do not put much weight on the letter from the editor, though Grudem does! I place greater weight on the lexicon, that has been updated over the years with numerous authors and editors, than a single editor in one small part of the LSJ history.
Mark continues,
“It seems that Dave is so desperate for the term ‘head’ to mean ‘source’ and not ‘authority’ that he… dedicated “To explore the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism”.”
I do not feel desperate! ‘Head’ means what it means. I am committed to reality. There are other references than the one website I offered. I note that dismissing a reference because it is associated with a group that holds a different view limits discussion. I have chosen to engage with Grudem’s arguments even though he is ‘complementarian’. Mark has dismissed three references to Marg Mowczko’s site purely because of the tag on her home page. The article by Cervin that I referenced on the site examines Grudem’s work on the word ‘head’. I commend it again for those who want to engage.
I highlighted the use of ‘head’ in Ephesians 4:15 could not mean ‘authority’. Mark did not respond. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul makes a list using ‘head’ that is not consistent with a hierarchical order but is consistent with a chronology of source. The source of man is Christ (1 Cor 8:6), the source of woman is man (1 Cor 11:8, 12), and then the source of Christ is God. If ‘head’ means authority in this verse then God is in authority over the risen Christ, a reality that scripture and the church does not support.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul clearly states that a woman has authority over her own head. Head here is her literal head, but it is in the context of the metaphorical use of head we have been talking about in 1 Corinthians 11:3. How can she have authority over her own head while the man is the authority over her? The conclusion to this passage, 1 Corinthains 11:11-12, gives a context, at least to some extent, of origin/source, as Paul states that woman comes from man, that man now also comes from woman, and all come from God.
Mark said LSJ was the only lexicon that had ‘head’ as source. I gave him another example, Mounce. By referencing this one lexicon I showed his statement to be false, but he ignored it. Additionally, some lexicons support ‘source’, but not all support ‘leader’ or ‘authority’. Payne says, “None of the lexicons by Moulton and Milligan, Presigke, Chantraine, Woodhouse, or the twelve additional lexicons cited by Cervin give even one example near Paul’s time when kephale means ‘leader’ or ‘authority’.” (Payne. The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood p53)
Payne also quotes 4 passages of Greek literature contemporary to Paul’s writing that show a meaning of ‘source’ with no hint of ‘authority’. He then lists examples of early church fathers who understood ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11:3 to mean ‘source’ as well as quoting Cyril of Alexandria who explains ‘head’ means ‘source’ along with Athanasius who does similar. Payne in pages 51-58 of The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood offers significant evidence, including quoting Grudem’s own concession that ‘head’ commonly means ‘source’.
Mark concludes the discussion on ‘head’ saying,
“Even if the term ‘head’ might possibly mean ‘source’, this is not what Paul means by the term in the… authority which they have been given by God to sacrificially serve.”
My question to Mark is, outside of using the term ‘head’, where does scripture say husbands are to have authority over their wives? The bible does not teach that husbands have authority over their wives, and Jesus teaches that ‘authority over’ is not the way of the Kingdom. Mark has ignored the words of Jesus that I have now quoted twice from Mark 10:43.
In regard to DeYoung, Mark says,
“Yes, Mark still notes Dave’s lack of response to the Kevin DeYoung quote, both in response to his original article as well as his response to Dave’s response! Once again, it seems that if an argument is brought forth which refutes Dave’s position he simply fails to engage…Just because Calvin says something doesn’t mean it’s always, automatically, true.”
I did not engage with everything in Mark’s original article. I chose to engage with what I could with my 1200-word limit. DeYoung brings nothing more to the argument. The Calvin quote on Eph 5:21 put forward the opposite view and I offered it. Mark then ignored the Calvin comment and challenged me for ignoring DeYoung. I then highlighted that DeYoung was ignored but so was Calvin. Mark then claims that when a quote ‘refutes Dave’s position he simply fails to engage with it”. Mark then fails to engage with the Calvin quote for a second time. He states things about Calvin that are true for every person that Mark and I have quoted (except for Jesus!) – e.g., “he’s fallible”.
Does DeYoung refute my arguments? Mark highlights when quoting DeYoung that he argues for the same thing as Carson, and I would add he makes the same claims and arguments as Carson. I really am not sure what Mark thinks DeYoung has brought to the table. If Mark wants to point to it, I will engage with it.
Moving to Deborah and others,
“Dave Woolcott: I challenged Mark on his claim that Mirriam, Huldah and Deborah… 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… indeed was part of God’s judgment upon his people.’”
Mark fails to show evidence for Barak’s alleged timidity and rebuke. He fails to bring evidence for the alleged string of redundant words piled up in the introduction to Deborah. Mark says, however, that he has answered my point on the public/private nature of Miriam, Deborah and Huldah’s ministry.
I note Mark has changed my point. I challenged him on the claim he made that, “as Grudem once again explains, women prophets always prophesied privately or prophesied to women.” But he suggests that I had said he was, “trying to say definitively that women never served in a public way – either as prophets or leaders.”
Mark still has not shown where scripture says these women only prophesied to women or in private. We move on to Isaiah 3:12,
“Dave Woolcott: Mark describes my quote from Marg Mowczko as a “highly controversial, but completely novel… 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… In short, Isaiah 3:12 is an indictment on female leadership, as the plain reading of the text makes clear.”
I agree with Mark. Age of comment does not determine truth. Yet the argument is hardly novel when the Septuagint dates to the third century BC. It is attributed to not one translator but many. This understanding of Isaiah 3:12 is held by more than one translation. The Good News Bible, the NET Bible, Brenton Septuagint and the Common English Bible all hold to this understanding.
My point with Motyer is that he is speaking of “dominant and demanding women” and as Mark rightly says, “that sounds like an indictment on a certain type of female leadership to me!” Exactly. Motyer is suggesting that it is an indictment on a certain type of female leadership – not on all types, just dominant and demanding female leadership.
Further to this, Motyer seeks to limit the indictment to certain people – such as the wives of the king. One of Mark’s quotes was from Oswalt who alludes to other commentaries saying that the Isaiah verse could be a reference to the queen mother. Another quote by Smith believes it could be the wives or the mother of the king. Mark has brought quotes that he suggests are trustworthy, that show Isaiah 3:12 is not an indictment on all female leadership.
Turning to Junia,
“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…
…‘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.”
Mark claims I have approached the passage assuming that apostles are women. The opposite is true. I assumed they were all men but I am following the evidence. Mark does not deal with the arguments but goes again to the ‘consensus’ claim saying that his conclusion “is consistent with that of most scholars”. That is a big claim. The article he has quoted by Esther Yue L. Ng describes the view that Junia was a woman as the “current consensus” in the opening sentence of the abstract. She then says on the first page that it reflects a currently “growing consensus”.
We come to the concluding comments,
“Mark Powell: If leaders do not have authority then why are believer’s commanded to ‘submit’ to them? (Heb. 13:17…
…Further, it is also why those who are younger are told to submit to their elders (1 Peter 5:7).”
Again, Hebrews 13:17 does not mention authority. I have shown how it might be rendered, “trust and have confidence in those who guide or go before you.” 1 Peter 5:3 does not give any evidence of elders having authority over others. 1 Peter 5:5, (not 7 as quoted by Mark) does ask young men to submit to their leaders, but submission does not dictate or demand an authority structure. Mark has failed to give evidence of authority over another in marriage or leadership, and he certainly has not dealt with the words of Jesus in Mark 10:42-45.
“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. What this debate demonstrates though is the serious theological and practical consequences which will occur if the 2023 GAA Report is adopted.”
It is true, I bring nothing new to the table. I am not one with many original thoughts. I have brought arguments from scripture that are easily found and understood. I do not agree with Mark’s perspective that these arguments have been ably answered. I feel that Mark has ignored or waved away without serious engagement the evidence presented. Mark has even presented information that has undermined his own claims.
I understand Mark’s original article was in relation to the GAA Report. I have not engaged with this report to date, and I chose to engage with Mark’s article where I felt it did not reflect scripture. I do not want to see the 2023 GAA Report adopted beyond the degree to which it reflects scripture. This exchange with Mark does not demonstrate the theological and practical consequences of adopting the Report.
I am not seeking to change anyone’s mind. I would like people to understand that with the issue of women in leadership in the church, there is more than one way to understand the contested verses of scripture. I have been told several times recently that this issue is clear in scripture. I do not agree. It would be better if we could learn to better honour each other in our different convictions as we move forward.
