Review of ‘A stalemate of genders? Some hermeneutical reflections’ by C. Powell
This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1994.
You ask me to comment on the article 'A stalemate of genders? Some hermeneutical reflections' by C. Powell, which appeared in Volume 17, Issue 3 (pp. 15–19), of 'Themelios'.1 My comments are as follows.
His general point that, in Greek, words that refer both to men and women at the same time are normally put in the masculine gender, and that this could obscure the fact that they apply to both men and women, is certainly true. A good example would be the word 'disciples' in Greek. That would be preceded in Greek by the definite article in the masculine gender 'the disciples', even though it would obviously in most contexts include both men and women disciples. And perhaps Powell is right to say that nowadays many English speakers need to have this pointed out to them.
That said, much of Mr. Powell's article is vitiated by false logic. For instance, his remark on page 15 that, if one takes Genesis 2 and the story of the creation of woman as containing basic and permanent principles to guide our behaviour—which, in fact the New Testament does—then in order to be consistent, we ought to deduce from Genesis 2 that all men ought to be gardeners. That is nonsense; and this is all the more surprising in an article which professes to be guiding us towards sound hermeneutical principles. Moreover, when the New Testament Epistles take the creational pattern in Genesis 2 and apply it to all generations as a permanent principle, it seems to me highly dangerous for Powell to say that its application is invalid unless we are prepared to go the further step and say that all men should be gardeners. His argument, I repeat, is fallacious. The relation between the sexes remains, whatever man's occupation.
Also, his comments on Ephesians 5:21, and in particular the comments of Markus Barth that he quotes, are likewise fallacious. He argues that Ephesians 5:21, 'Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ', means a mutual submission, and that therefore in the following verses the husband's love and duty towards his wife is equally a form of submission (see Ephesians 5:25), as is the wife's submission to her husband. But this is false. As one can immediately see from Ephesians 5:24, the wives' submission to their husbands has as its pattern the submission of the church to Christ. Now, while the church is, of course, to be submissive to Christ, it would be utterly erroneous to suggest that Christ is also expected to be submissive to the church, so that the church and Christ are to be mutually submissive the one to the other. Christ's love for the church does not mean that Christ submits to the church.
At the bottom of page 16, Powell claims that the Greek word anthrōpos is an exclusive term, and refers to both men and women. In Classical Greek, it means, of course, a human being, and therefore can be used of both men and women. In Hellenistic Greek, however, it is not used with such precision, and context must decide whether it is being used to refer to a man or to a woman, or to both. In the plural, it can refer to both at the same time, but in the singular there are occasions where it will refer to a man only, and others where it will refer only to a woman. In Ephesians 5:31 it obviously refers only to a man: 'for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife'. In 1 Peter 3:4 the term 'the hidden man of the heart' comes in a context where Peter is addressing Christian women. In Hebrews 7:8, 28, the term is used to refer to Israel's priests. We know from the Old Testament that no women were ever appointed priests, and it would be quite false to translate Hebrews 7:28 as 'the law makes men and women high priests'.
At the top of page 17, Powell refers to 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and complains that, in English translations of this passage about elders, insertion of the masculine personal pronoun 'he' 'prejudges the issue and makes it difficult to read it as anything but exclusively male when there is in reality no Greek male personal pronoun or indication that it is to be understood exclusively.' Powell seems to have overlooked completely that verse 2 lays it down as a necessary qualification of a bishop that he must be the husband of one wife. There is no additional clause saying either the husband of one wife or the wife of one husband, as the case may be. Powell, therefore, seems to have fallen into that same prejudiced hermeneutic of which he accuses the traditionalists.
Powell also has a long section on the meaning of the Greek word kephalē (head). In response to his remarks, refer to Wayne Grudem's writings on this topic.2 Similarly, in his exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 and his citation of Ben Witherington's exposition of these verses, Powell seems to overlook completely the statement in 1 Timothy 2:13, that 'Adam was first formed, then Eve'. This statement is certainly not meant to imply simply that Eve, being created later than Adam, had not had time enough yet to learn all she needed to know. The same observation of the order of creation is made in 1 Corinthians 11:9 and the implication that is there drawn from the order of creation goes far beyond what either Powell or Witherington wish to allow.
Finally, Powell's plea, based upon what he calls the contextualization of much that is in the epistles, overlooks the fact that when Paul writes to correct imbalance in the early churches, he does this by calling into action the basic fundamental principles of the order of creation. The basic principles do not change with the passage of time.
Yours very sincerely in Christ,
1 The article under review was in the April/May 1992 edition, published then by UCCF/IFES. Currently available on https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/a-stalemate-of-genders-some-hermeneutical-reflections/
2 Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (“Head”) Mean “Source” or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal ns 6.1 (Spring 1985): 38-59.