Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Internal Contradictions and Other Fallacies

We are often told that the Bible does not mention women as leaders. Yet, there is a deliberate attempt to re-write the Bible when it comes to women in leadership, for the Bible does mention women as leaders.

Fallacy # 1 Junia

Grudem and Schreiner are anxious to get rid of Junia, for they have no credible explanation for her existence. Grudem's final attempt to discredit the existence of a woman as an apostle is to dismiss Junia because "Junia was not a common woman’s name in the Greek-speaking world," which is true, for it is Roman name, which shouldn't surprise anyone for the book of Romans was, after all, sent to Rome. Roman girls were given their father's name in the feminine form: Julius became Julia, Junius became Junia. Junia was a common name in the Latin-speaking world; Junias is a fictitious name created to hide the existence of a woman apostle in the Bible.

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Schreiner: p 221
Grudem: p 79

The most undeniable evidence of women in ecclesiastical leadership is found in the Bible. Because the women leaders found in the Bible challenge the dogma of the woman’s subordination, the women in question have either been ignored – or transformed into men. Junia has become a controversial biblical figure because Paul calls her an apostle (Rom. 16:7). A footnote by the editors of the Early Church Writer’s collection provides us a vivid picture of how scholars have dealt with Junia’s identity.

The more probable view is that Andronicus and Junias [not Junia as Chrys., certainly not if his interpretation is correct; that a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question] are designated as distinguished, honorably known among (by) the apostles. (So De Wette, Philippi, Holmann, Meyer).[1]

Schreiner is candid in his essay The Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership about the problem Junia’s identity poses for complementarian theology.

Of course, if Junias was a woman apostle (Romans 16:7), then a tension is created between the apostleship of Junias (if Junias was a woman) and the other arguments adduced in the chapter, for apostles were certainly the most authoritative messengers of God in the New Testament.[2]

He concludes that the passage is unclear and therefore no decisive decision can be made based on the information given in the Bible. Schreiner is not alone in his indecision for also Grudem writes that we cannot know if Junia was a woman because “the evidence is indecisive,” and therefore we cannot be dogmatic about the name.[3] Although both Grudem and Schreiner wish to ignore Romans 16:7,[4] Grudem does not consider it sound hermeneutic, “If someone says, ‘I am not going to base my decision on these verses because nobody can figure out what they mean anyway,’ then he has essentially said that those passages cannot play a role in his decision about this question.”[5] Grudem must remain indecisive, despite his own advice, for if he claims that the name is ‘Junias,’ he must provide proof, which he cannot, for according to Eldon Jay Epp, “After all, the masculine Junias was asserted (I would say invented) when no evidence for such a masculine name could be found, a circumstance still unchanged.”[6] On the other hand, if he admits Junia was a woman, he must explain how she could have been a bishop for he quotes Epiphanius, “Iounias, of whom [hou] Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.”[7] Epiphanius used the masculine relative pronoun (hou), but in the endnotes Grudem admits that he is perplexed that Epiphanius designates also Priscilla as a man.[8]

Grudem quotes also Rufinus’s Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Romans which has “Andronicus et Junias,” a Latin masculine, singular nominative. However, Epp cites Caroline Hammond Bammel’s critical edition on Origen which explains that Iunias (“Junias”) is a variant reading from a twelfth-century manuscript subgroup E, which also includes Iulia (“Julia”) as a variant.[9] Earlier manuscripts from the ninth century all have Iunia (“Junia”). In addition, Hraban of Fulda (780-856) cited Rufinus’s translation of Origen literally and the name we find in his text is Junia.

Both the King James Version and New King James Version have Junia, as does Erasmus’s New Testament (1516).[10] The Greek manuscripts all have Junia, except for five that have the variant Julia. In addition, some manuscripts have Junia in Romans 16:15 (where the name Julia appears), a variant which can be explained only if both of the names were feminine. Because of these variants, even Julia has become a male name in the hands of translators and commentators. Aegidius (1243/47-1316) is usually considered the first one to call Junia – and Julia - a man.[11] However, by far the greatest influence over the identity of Junia has been Luther who brought the male Junias to the masses through his German translation of the New Testament (1522) and his Lectures on Romans.[12]

That Junia was a woman is thus established, but was she was an apostle? Grudem attempts to make Andronicus and Junia “messengers” in the broad sense and he provides two examples: 1 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25-6. But his case is weakened by the fact that the “brother” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 was chosen by the churches to join Titus as he traveled to Corinth to prepare the offering gathered by the Corinthians. Andronicus and Junia were in Rome and no mention is made of them traveling as representatives of the Roman church, or any other church, to distribute offerings gathered. Similarly, Epaphroditus was sent to Paul by the Philippian church to bring him their gift and to care for him in prison (Phil. 2:25-26). Paul mentions that Andronicus and Junia were “in Christ” before him, making it very possible that they had seen the risen Christ, which was one of the qualifications for apostleship.

Epiphanius writes that Junia whom Paul mentions became a bishop of Apameia, which further strengthens the case that Junia was an apostle, for the offices of an apostle and bishop were identical in the Early Church (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1): “But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, bishops and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church.”[13]

An early witness to Junia’s identity is Chrysostom who did not only call Junia a woman –he also thought she was an apostle par excellence.

“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφια) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!  But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”[14]

Yet, for some Junia cannot be an apostle and a woman at the same, regardless of the evidence for “if the phrase means ‘distinguished apostles,’ ‘Iouninan is a man…On the other hand, if the name is female, the phrase means ‘of note in the eyes of the apostles.’”[15] Grudem does not dare to call Junia a man for the lack of evidence, but neither is he willing to call her a woman and give legitimacy to the existence of a female apostle and bishop. In a last effort to support his indecision, he writes that Junia was not a common woman’s name in the Greek-speaking world,[16] which is true since it was a Latin name.[17]

---

[1] Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI, Verse 7, Footnote 13.

[2] Piper and Grudem, 221.

[3] Ibid., 79.  

[4] Knight writes that according to a hermeneutical principle, the section which deals with the technical terms must be resolved first, after which a historical statement, the actual lives of real people, can be evaluated. This is a true principle, but if the lives of real people continuously conflict with the resolution, one must examine the resolution itself, for it is not possible that the real lives of the people found in the Bible are entirely out of harmony with biblical truths, unless used as a negative example. The Bible mentions women in various leadership roles: Miriam (leader), Deborah (judge), Huldah (prophet), Phoebe (deacon), Priscilla (co-worker) and Junia (apostle). These women have either been ignored or the legitimacy of the leadership has been questioned by complementarists due to their commitment to the twofold subjection of Thomas Aquinas. (Piper and Grduem, 354).

[5] Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,  2006), 89.

[6] Eldon Jay Epp, Junia, The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 27.

[7] Piper and Grudem, 79.

[8] Ibid., Footnote 19, 479.

[9] Epp, 33-34.

[10] Ibid., 28.

[11] Ibid., 35.

[12] Ibid., 38.

[13] Cyprian, “Epistle LXIV,” Epistles of Cyprian,  3.

[14] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI.

[15] Piper and Grudem, 72.

[16] Ibid., 80.

[17] Roman women were given their father’s name in the feminine form, thus Julius became Julia, Junius became Junia, Claudius became Claudia, Dianus became Diana etc. (Pomeroy, 165).

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Internal Contradictions and Other Fallacies

The writers of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood try to explain how the women found in the Bible fit in the complementarian worldview, but it causes some unexpected problems.

Contradiction # 2: Deacons

Schreiner and Knight are in disagreement whether the women mentioned in 1 Tim 3 were deacons or the wives of deacons. 

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Schreiner: p 220, 504

Knight: p 353

Regarding women deacons, Schreiner writes that we do not need to come to a firm decision, for deacons did not teach or govern the church,[1] yet Schreiner favors the existence of women deacons in his comment found in the footnotes. 

Another argument in favor of woman deacons is that Paul says nothing about the wives of elders in 1Timothy 3:1-7. Such an omission is hard to explain if he is speaking of the wives of deacons in Timothy 3:11. One would expect that higher qualifications would be demanded of wives of elders than of wives of deacons. But if Paul is referring to women who were deacons, then the omission of women among elders is because women could not be elders, although they could be deacons. Of course, those who argue for full inclusion of women do not use this particular argument because it would exclude women from being elders, even though they could be deacons.[2]

Schreiner ignores the word ei-tis (“anyone”) in 1 Timothy 3:1 which qualifies both men and women to seek the position as overseers. He neglects also the fact that the phrase found in 1 Timothy 3:2 – mias guinakos andra – is found also in 1 Timothy 3:12, wherefore it is absolutely essential that must come to a firm decision about women deacons, for if it is proven that 1 Timothy 3:11 speaks of women deacons, the phrase cannot exclude women from being overseers. 

Incidentally, Knight disagrees with Schreiner for he sees the role of the deacons as one of leadership, which is also the Catholic position.

Most Christians and churches who have made the application to “elders” have done so also for “deacons,” noting that they, too, are designated in masculine terms (1 Timothy 3:12; also Acts 6.3, where the Greek word used for “men” [aner] is the word used to distinguish men from women rather than one used for men as mankind whether male or female [anthropos].) They have noted furthermore that the role of deacons is still one of leadership, even if the leadership is in the area of service. At the same time it should be noted that women (or wives) are referred to in this section of deacons (1 Timothy 3:11). This has led to two understandings. The first is that the text distinguishes them from the deacons (who are males), does not designate them as deacons, but mentions them because they serve with and alongside the deacons in diaconal service. It is my judgment that this view understands the passage correctly and furthermore that it is the wives of deacons who are in view.[3]

 
As with Junia, if deacons are part of leadership, the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 are wives; if deacons are not part of leadership, the women are deacons. 

The same grammatical construction used of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 is found in 1 Corinthians 7:12-14.

 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

The woman in verse 13 is not married to the “brother” in verse 12. Instead, both the “brother” and “woman” belong to the same “category,” (i.e., Christians married to unbelievers). It is therefore unlikely that the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 are married to the deacons mention in 1 Timothy 3:8, but are deacons themselves.

Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle, applied all of the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:8-12 to deacons in general.

     

Knowing, then, that “God is not mocked,” we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers (F), double-tongued (M), or lovers of money (M), but temperate (F) in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all.[4]

Also Clement of Alexandria included women as deacons, although he errenously placed the text in the second letter to Timothy.

Scimus enim quae cunque de feminis diaconis in altera ad Timotheum praestantissimus docet Paulus

We also know about the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy.[5]   

Chrysostom stated without ambiguity that the phrase mias guinakos andra referred also to women deacons, not wives of deacons.

Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses. “Let the Deacons be husbands of one wife.” This must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses. For that order is necessary and useful and honorable in the Church. Observe how he requires the same virtue from the Deacons, as from the Bishops, for though they were not of equal rank, they must equally be blameless; equally pure.[6]  

Since the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 were not wives, but deacons, and the phrase mias guinakos andra was applicable to them, the phrase cannot be used to exclude women from leadership in the church.

           

Phoebe is a controversial figure in the Bible for she is called diakonos (“deacon’). Knight considers the term diakonos found in Romans 16:1-2 to be used in a nontechnical and nonofficial sense.[7] 

Schreiner is once again doubtful about the identity of a woman with an official title, for he writes that “one cannot be sure” whether Phoebe was a deacon. [8] 

But Chrysostom recognized Phoebe as an office-holding deaconess.

Wishing then that they should feel on easy terms, and be in honor, he addressed each of them, setting forth their praise to the best advantage he might. For one he calls beloved another kinsman, another both, another fellow-prisoner, another fellow-worker, another approved, another elect. And of the women one he addresses by her title, for he does not call her servant of the Church in an undefined way (because if this were so he would have given Tryphena and Persis this name too), but this one as having the office of deaconess, and another as helper and assistant, another as mother, another from the labors she underwent, and some he addresses from the house they belonged to, some by the name of Brethren, some by the appellation of Saints. And some he honors by the mere fact of addressing them, and some by addressing them by name, and some by calling them first-fruits, and some by their precedence in time, but more than all, Priscilla and Aquila.[9]

---

[1] Piper and Grudem, 220.

[2] Piper and Grudem, 504.

[3] Ibid., 353.

[4] The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch. V.

[5] Stromata, Book III, Ch. VI.

[6] Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily XI.

[7] Piper and Grudem, 353.

[8] Ibid., 219.

[9] Homilies on Romans, XXXI.

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Internal Contradictions and Other Fallacies

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism is a compilation work edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. Since the essays are written by different authors, the book gives us an opportunity to see how coherent the complementarian position is. Because of its size, it can be difficult to compare notes between the different writers, but a careful reading reveals that there are indeed problems.


Contradiction # 1: Ezer

Ortlund, Grudem, and Frame disagree as to the meaning of the word "ezer" (help) found in Genesis 2.

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Ortlund: p 104
Grudem: p 87
Frame: p 227, Footnote 19, p 507

Ortlund recognizes that his theology has an error – the clear contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 – and he tries to correct it by resorting to a paradox, but it is a perilous path, as philosopher Manuel Velasquez points out, “Once a single contradiction is allowed, it is easy to prove with rigorous logic that any statement whatsoever is true. That is anything can be proven once you accept a contradiction.”[1] Accordingly, Ortlund and Grudem give two entirely different and contradictory meanings to ‘ezer (“help”) which are both considered true.

Ortlund

It is the word “helper” that suggests the woman’s supportive role. Spencer argues, however, that this description of Eve “does not at all imply inherent subordination.” She adduces the fact that God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as our “Helper,” which He is. She then interprets this fact:  “If being ‘one who helps’ inherently implies subordination, then, in that case, God would be subordinate to human!” This reasoning is not really fallacious. The fallacy lies in the implication of what she says, namely, that God cannot be subordinate to human beings. He does so whenever He undertakes to help us. He does not “un-God” Himself in helping us; but stoops down to our needs, according to His gracious and sovereign will. Similarly, I subordinate myself to my children when I help them with their homework. … So it is with God. When He helps His people, He retains His glorious deity but (amazingly!) steps into the servant role, under us, to lift us up. He is the God who emptied Himself and came down to our level – below us, to the level of slavery – to help us supremely at the Cross. Therefore, the fact that the Old Testament portrays God as our Helper proves only that the helper role is a glorious one, worthy even the Almighty. This Biblical fact does not prove that the concept of helper excludes subordination. Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role.”[2]

Grudem

It is true that God is often called our “helper,” but the word itself does not imply anything about rank or authority. The context must decide whether Eve is to “help” as a strong person who aids a weaker one, or as one who assists a loving leader. The context makes it very unlikely that helper should be read on the analogy of God’s help, because in Genesis 2:19-20 Adam is caused to seek his “helper” first among the animals. … Yet in passing through “helpful” animals to woman, God teaches us that the woman is a man’s “helper” in the sense of a loyal and suitable assistant in the life of the garden. The question seems to assume that because the word (like helper) has certain connotations (“Godlikeness”) in some places it must have them in every place.[3]

What becomes clear from the above quotes is that the analogy of God and woman can be used if it proves that the woman is subordinate, but not if it makes the woman superior to the man. Not surprisingly, Ortlund and Grudem never propose that the word ‘ezer means that the woman is an equal, for it would destroy their concept of male headship. Instead they focus on refuting a scenario in which the woman is the stronger and the man the weaker, which they perhaps expected to create an instant negative response as seen in Ortlund’s response to Spencer’s comment on Genesis 2. Ortlund expresses indignation that she would even suggest that the “helper” could be superior to Adam.[4] But however indignant Ortlund is, his own argument makes the woman superior, since he compares her to God who stoops down to help us and to a parent who comes down to the child’s level. If God subordinates Himself, He must be under human authority, for subordination signifies occupying a lower position in a hierarchy. Tertullian refuted such a belief in already the third century when he wrote, “[Y]our divinity is put in subjection to Christians; and you can surely never ascribe deity to that which is under the authority of man.”[5] Thus God does in fact “un-God” Himself if He subordinates Himself to human beings.[6]

---

[1] Ibid., 405.

[2] Piper and Grudem, 104.

[3] Ibid., 87.

[4] Ibid., 103.

[5] The Apology, Ch. XXIII.

[6] John M. Frame, on the other hand cannot decide whether the word help implies subordination or not in his essay Men and Women in the Image of God. He writes, “Humans beings are to help God (1:28); woman is to help man (2:20),” (Recovering, 227) and he believes “the very submission of the woman also images God. God the Lord is not too proud to be our “helper.” (230) But suddenly and somewhat inexplicably he agrees with those “who say that ‘helper’ does not in itself connote any subordination,” for although God is the helper of Israel He was not created for Israel as the woman was for the man (Footnote 19, 507). Frame does not explain how the woman’s submission can image God’s if God does not submit.

Seven Arguments in Defense of Equality

Argument # 1 The man was given authority to end an impasse in marriage
Counter argument: Did Adam and Eve argue in the Garden of Eden? Has there never been a time when humans were of one love, of one mind and had the same purpose and goal (Phil 2:1-5)? Fighting is a work of the flesh (Gal 5:20); how could the humans who knew not of sin have a "flesh" that causes them to fight? If the Trinity is our model; does the Son argue with the Father, causing the Father to need authority over the Son?

Argument # 2 The man was created first
Counter argument: 1 Cor 15:22 says we all die in Adam, wherefore all of us had to be in Adam. The second man could not have received his authority from the first man, for even the first woman was in Adam. If all men received their authority from Adam, we are saying that being a man is enough to receive authority, but being a human is not. Yet, God gave authority over all creation to both the man and the woman (Gen 1:26-28), and no separate mentioning is made of the man's authority over the woman.

Argument # 3 The woman was created a help, which proves she was created to serve the man
Counter argument: The help was a woman, the woman wasn't a help. Nowhere else in the Bible is a woman called a "help," nor is the world "help" used to denote subordination. It is often used of God with the meaning of someone who comes alongside to help another who is helpless. The man was alone; the help the man needed was to end his loneliness. The woman's creation did just that. The man exclaimed "This one!" seeing the woman, for his lonely days were over.

Argument # 4 The woman desires to control the man
Counter argument: If the woman desires to control the man, why have men always controlled women?

Argument # 5 Egalitarianism causes women to refuse to submit
Counter argument: Egalitarianism does not cause women to seek power to themselves; it asks men to submit the same way as women already do. The goal is mutual submission. A man who refuses to submit is not living the life of love (Eph 5:1-2), for even Jesus gave his life for others, instead of seeking to please himself (Romans 15:1-4).

Argument # 6 Men have the right to command, women have the duty to obey
Counter argument: Selfish ambition/self-seeking/strife is a work of the "flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). Where self-seeking and envy are found, so is every evil work (Jas 3:14). Love is not self-seeking; it seeks also the interests of others (1 Cor 13:5, Phil 2:1-5). Because every Christian has the right to follow his or her own conscience as far as the truth is concerned, the man's right to command has only to do with preferences; the man expects the woman to always follow his preferences. But love does not act in such a way. If a man does not wish a woman to force her opinions and preferences on him, neither should he do so to her, for we should love our neighbors the way we love ourselves and do to others what we want them do to us (Luke 6:31).

Argument # 7 Women shouldn't teach men
Counter argument: If 1 Timothy 2:11-13 tells us women should learn in quietness, it says also that men should teach with a tumultuous uproar, being busybodies in everyone's business, fighting and arguing with everyone, for the same word [quietness] is found here:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread (2 Thess 3:10-12 KJV).

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty (1 Tim 2:1-2 KJV).

The quiet life is known by its godliness and honesty. The tumultuous life is known for its disorder, lack of peace and harmony (1 Thess 5:14).

Those who lead a quiet life submit, for they are respectful towards others:

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight (1 Peter 3:1-4 NIV).

In conclusion: if women should lead a quiet life, but men shouldn't, men must by necessity lead a disorderly life. This contradicts the teaching of Paul elsewhere, wherefore we can conclude that 1 Tim 2:11-12 does not teach that women should not teach men; only that they should not do so in a disorderly way.