Through Distorting Spectacles
A review of Men and Women in the Church: A Short, Biblical, Practical Introduction, by Kevin DeYoung (Crossway, 2021). 170 pages.
Looking at Men and Women in the Bible
Kevin DeYoung is an able writer. He wanted to write a book “that explained the Bible’s teaching about men and women in the church in a way that the interested layperson could understand and in a size that he or she could read in a few hours”.
Assessed in light of his objective, this work has merit, because DeYoung writes lucidly, and he packs a lot of content into a short book. That is why I cite this work nearly 60 times in my own book, True Complementarity: Men and Women in Christ.
In Part 1, his biblical exploration chapters are:
- A Very Good Place to Start (Genesis 1–3)
- Patterns that Preach (Old Testament Survey)
- Revolution and Repetition (Jesus and the Gospels)
- Of Heads and Hair (1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14: 33–35)
- A Marriage Made in Heaven (Ephesians 5:22–33)
- The Heart of the Matter (1 Timothy 2:8–15)
- Leaders, Servants, and Life Together (1 Timothy 3:1–13)
There are some important things that DeYoung gets right. For example, we should not use the Trinity as our model for the marriage relationship (Ch. 4).
But what we mostly get is not really “the Bible’s teaching”. Instead, it is the Bible as filtered through patriarchal spectacles. (I’m using ‘patriarchal’ in the sense that men are in charge – not in the sense that men are oppressors, which DeYoung rightly condemns.)
In this book, DeYoung barely engages with egalitarian or mutualist interpretations of Scripture. In his Part 2 chapter on Common Objections (Ch. 8), he cites one weak argument for women’s ordination by a Roman Catholic writer (115).
He closes with “Growing Up as Boys and Girls” (Ch. 9) and “Following Christ as Men and Women” (Ch. 10). These are a strange mixture. He offers instructions for what he calls “biblical manhood and womanhood” (136). He believes his sons and daughters need to be taught “what it means to be a man or a woman” (117). Yet he also affirms the “givenness of being male or female” as “a gift” from God (137). He never pauses to ask himself why the Bible gives no instructions on how to be a masculine man or how to be a feminine woman. He does not consider whether the reason for that absence might be the givenness of being male and female, which makes such instructions unnecessary. The biblical goal for men and women is not masculinity and femininity but Christlikeness, as part of God’s new creation (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17; Gal. 3:26–28; Eph. 4:13; 5:2; Phil. 2:5; 1 John 3:2).
DeYoung wears the patriarchal spectacles enthusiastically, for he is committed to men’s leadership of women in home, church and society. They distort what he sees. They make it hard for him to perceive what God’s word actually says, where it contradicts his views.
Readers who are already committed to a patriarchal outlook may read this book quickly without finding much to disagree with. But if we check DeYoung’s exposition against what Scripture says, we will find many discrepancies and errors of reasoning. He even misreads complementarian scholarly work.
1 Corinthians 7
The longest passage of teaching in the New Testament concerning men and women is in 1 Corinthians 7.
But the spectacles are so blurry that DeYoung does not consider this passage to be worth discussing in his book.
That is remarkable. For DeYoung rejects mutual submission in marriage, asserting that a husband is the decision-maker, with unilateral authority over his wife and sole responsibility for spiritual leadership [Chs 5, 8].
Yet 1 Corinthians 7 is the only passage which expressly teaches about the “authority” of husband and wife (which is the same). It is the only passage which expressly teaches how couples should take decisions (by mutual consent). And Paul teaches this in the context of significant spiritual and physical matters: joint prayer and sexual intercourse.
The spectacles prevent DeYoung from seeing the significance of 1 Corinthians 7? If he perceived it, it would defeat his view.
Ephesians 5
In Ephesians 5, Paul’s own indication of the meaning of his ‘head’ metaphor, as applied to the husband, is in 5:23 (literally, “a husband is head of the wife as also the Messiah is head of the church, himself savior of the body”). Note that Paul’s phrase “as to the Lord” (v22) is not an instruction to husbands. Addressing husbands, Paul spells out the practical content of the “savior” idea in 5:25-33a. It is all about humble, self-sacrificial love and care. Not one word telling a husband to exercise authority over his wife.
But the spectacles screen this out. DeYoung never notices or quotes the critical words “savior of the body”. He interprets the metaphor as if Paul’s explanation had been “lord over the body” [Chs 4, 5, 8]. If DeYoung’s patriarchal viewpoint is correct, why is there no statement in Ephesians 5 – or even in the whole of the Bible – that husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives or lead them?
DeYoung overcomes the difficulty of the absent command by simply adding it in, asserting that husbands must “lead” their wives (70, emphasis original).
Having missed Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 on mutual submission in marriage, DeYoung misunderstands the word ‘submit’ (hupotassō) in Ephesians 5:21, 24. He treats it as a synonym for ‘obey’. He claims that the Greek word is “always” used “with reference to a relationship where one party has authority over the other” [Ch 8].
But that is simply wrong. In 1 Corinthians 14:32 the spirits of the prophets are subject to (hupotassō) their own control. That is not a relationship where one party has authority over the other.
In 1 Corinthians 16:16 Paul urges the believers to submit (hupotassō) to the household of Stephanas and to everyone who joins them in their works of service. That would include women, slaves and other people who serve as believers in a range of ways not limited to leadership, so Paul’s instruction does not indicate a relationship of one-way authority.
So also in Ephesians 5:21. Paul wants all the believers to be filled with the Spirit (v18) so that they will be singing praises to God, giving thanks, and submitting to one another (which is all in the same sentence).
The word hupotassō is not a synonym for ‘obey’. It means ‘place below’. In v21 Paul is urging all believers, including wives and husbands, to place themselves below others. That does not imply that the others are in authority over them. It means treating them as if they were in a higher position.
Genesis
DeYoung says that, in Genesis, Adam is Eve’s leader because Eve is Adam’s “helper”. He rightly adds that in multiple places in Scripture God is Israel’s “helper” [Ch 1]. But he fails to notice that this fatally undermines his reasoning. Since God is Israel’s “helper”, by DeYoung’s logic that would mean Israel is God’s leader.
DeYoung says that Adam was the “designated leader and representative”. He says this is made “indisputably clear” in Romans 5 [Ch 1]. But that is a confusion, for “leader” and “representative” are two distinct ideas. In Romans 5, as in Genesis, Adam is representative of all humanity (in accordance with the meaning of his name, ‘adam’ = ‘humankind’). In Romans 5, as in Genesis, nothing is said about Adam being either Eve’s leader or anyone else’s leader.
Women in the Old Testament
DeYoung’s reading of the Old Testament through patriarchal spectacles results in elementary mistakes which downgrade the contributions of women.
He says that the leaders of the Exodus were all men. But the narrative shows Miriam among the leaders (see also Micah 6:4: “I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam”) [Ch 2].
He claims that Miriam ministered only to women (Exod. 15:20) [Ch 8]. But the words “to them” in 15:21 are masculine in Hebrew. This tells us that Miriam did not sing only to the women in v20 but to the whole people of Israel (15:1, 19).
DeYoung states that only men rightfully led Israel in any governing office [Ch 2].
But God raised up Deborah as the highest civic, spiritual and judicial authority (Judges 2:16-18; 4 – 5). In that period of Israel’s history, the only person of comparable stature was Samuel, who prophesied, decided disputes at the highest level, and oversaw military victories (1 Samuel 3:19-21; 7:2-17). DeYoung claims that Deborah possessed no institutional authority and judged in private [Chs 2, 8]. But she was Israel’s governing leader and Supreme Court, and she administered justice in public, “under the palm of Deborah” (Judges 4:4-5).
DeYoung says that the “virtue” of the “godly woman” in Proverbs 31 “is primarily in helping her husband” [Ch 2]. But the text describes her as providing both for her family and for the poor, as a manufacturer, entrepreneurial farmer, commercial trader, and philanthropist.
Jesus and the Twelve
DeYoung argues: Jesus himself came as a man, embodying “what true manliness was meant to be – saving, protecting, rescuing, leading, teaching and serving. So it makes sense that … he chose only men.”
But Scripture shows no interest in Jesus’s “manliness”. Rather, it teaches that Jesus came to embody what humanity was meant to be (Hebrews 1 – 2), which is why the goal for both men and women is to be like Christ (Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:5).
DeYoung rightly understands that the Jewishness of the 12 primary apostles chosen by Jesus was “linked to a particular moment in salvation history”, so that leadership became more diverse after Pentecost [Ch 3].
But he sees the maleness of the 12 apostles as of enduring significance, despite Peter’s plain explanation of the new thing which began at Pentecost, which was that the Holy Spirit was poured out abundantly on both men and women (Acts 2:14-18).
DeYoung fails to see that the primary apostles were male for the same reason that they were Jewish and free, and for the same reason that there were 12 of them. By choosing a group of 12 free Jewish males, resembling the 12 patriarchs (sons of Israel), Jesus showed that he was reconstituting God’s people around himself.
DeYoung also fails to appreciate that Peter’s description of the qualifications needed for replacing Judas Iscariot underlines the time-limited and transitional function of the Twelve (Acts 1:21–22).
Priscilla and Aquila
DeYoung downgrades women’s contributions in the New Testament. He says “there is no indication” that Priscilla “exercised teaching authority over men” [Ch 8].
But what does Luke’s narrative in Acts 18 show?
A church-planting team of three arrived in Ephesus (Paul, Priscilla, Aquila). Paul’s message received a favorable reception but he promptly resumed his travels, leaving only Priscilla and Aquila to teach and care for the new converts.
The learned and mighty orator Apollos arrived, preaching an incomplete gospel. Priscilla and Aquila corrected him.
Why should Apollos take any notice of anything that they said? Because they were Paul’s delegates, whom he had left in charge of the nascent church. As the first leaders of the new group of believers in Ephesus, they exercised their authority to correct Apollos.
Luke’s purpose in including this story is to show that Paul’s ministry was continued through his male and female co-workers, whom he had selected and trained well. This is underlined by Luke’s choice of words. The relatively unusual verb which Luke uses in Acts 18:26 to describe Priscilla’s and Aquila’s teaching (ektithēmi) is the same word which he uses of the apostle Paul’s own expository teaching in Acts 28:23, in the passage where he brings his whole narrative to an end.
Junia
DeYoung believes it to be “likely” that the woman apostle Junia, who was commended by Paul in Romans 16, was actually “a man” called Junias [Ch 8]. For this, he relies on a 2020 article by Esther Ng.
But he has misread Ng’s article, which does no more than attempt to raise a possibility that – in Ng’s own words – Junia “might not have been a woman”.
Furthermore, Ng’s attempt to raise the possibility is unsuccessful (see chapter 15 of True Complementarity). There are hundreds of other examples from antiquity of the female name ‘Junia’ and none of the imaginary male name ‘Junias’.
DeYoung also claims Ng argues persuasively that “Andronicus and Junia were well known to the apostles, not well known as apostles” (112, 157 n. 4, emphases original).
But Ng does no such thing. DeYoung has again misread Ng’s article. She explicitly refrains from endorsing that interpretation (see chapter 16 of True Complementarity).
Even Chrysostom, who was a committed patriarchist, admitted that Junia was a woman apostle. He viewed this as remarkable. He explained that she was outstanding because of her achievements.
1 Corinthians 11
DeYoung offers an interpretation of Paul’s discussion about heads and hair (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) which makes it all about male authority over women, especially wives [Ch 4].
But in Paul’s text the only actual mention of ‘authority’ is the authority that a woman ought to have (v10 – “because of this the woman ought to have authority over her head”).
To maintain his patriarchal interpretation, DeYoung reverses the meaning of v10, so that authority is removed from the woman and given to the man. He does this by endorsing the ESV translation, which adds into v10 some extra words which Paul did not write. These make it say that a wife ought to have “a symbol of” authority on her head (meaning, a symbol of her husband’s authority over her, and/or of her submission to it). This misrepresents what Scripture says.
1 Corinthians 14
The verses which we know as 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 have given rise to much puzzlement.
Paul teaches about and encourages vocal participation in worship by both men and women from 11:2 to 14:33, and from 14:36-40. But in 14:34-35 he appears to prohibit all vocal participation by women. That makes no sense. And v34 contains an untruth (“… as the Law also says”, though it doesn’t).
DeYoung acknowledges that Paul allowed women to prophesy. His solution for v34-35 is: “The explicit situation in which women must be silent is where prophecies are being evaluated” [Ch 4].
But that proposal is in conflict with the words on the page. First, the ban is not explicitly on evaluating prophecies; instead, the words in v34-35 are a comprehensive ban on all vocal participation by women, and it is given maximum emphasis by being stated three times in different words. Second, Paul says who should evaluate prophecies. In v29 he instructs that it be done by “the others”, which in context refers naturally to the other prophets, who include women. (Just possibly, “the others” could refer to the whole congregation, but that again includes women.)
There are better solutions. Either Paul is quoting opponents in 34-35, or, as the manuscript evidence strongly suggests, the two verses were not in the original letter but were someone’s marginal comment, which got incorporated by mistake (in two different places, after v34 or after v40). DeYoung does not consider either of these solutions, though he finds space to dismiss four others.
1 Timothy 2
In 1 Timothy 2 we come to what DeYoung calls “the heart of the matter”.
The biggest question for understanding 1 Timothy 2:12 is this: what was Paul concerned about, that gave rise to his instructions? Was it (A) the spread of false teaching in Ephesus, in which misguided and misbehaving women were involved? Or was it (B) when the church in Ephesus met for worship, faithful women (rather than faithful men) were teaching faithfully?
If we read from 1:1 to 2:11, we find it fits (A) rather than (B), and chapter 5 of Paul’s letter confirms this. But DeYoung doesn’t perceive the relevance of this context [Ch 6].
Paul’s supporting reasoning in 2:13-14 refers to the well-known story of Adam and Eve. DeYoung’s explanations provide the crowning examples of the blinding effect of the spectacles [Ch 6]:
- DeYoung suggests that Paul is referring to the nature of women as being “more likely to acquiesce to doctrinal deviation”. But would any thoughtful person choose that story to demonstrate that men are more likely to take a firm stand? What did Adam do? He acquiesced.
- Perhaps half-aware that his first interpretation makes Paul look stupid, DeYoung also offers “another understanding”, which involves what he calls “role reversal” (though there is no mention of that either in Genesis or in 1 Timothy). He says “Paul is pointing to the difference between the two guilty persons: Adam sinned openly, but Eve was deceived.” But this again makes Paul look foolish in his reasoning. How is it safer to be taught by a deliberate rebel than by a person who is merely deceived?
Spiritual gifts and the health of the body
Discussing spiritual gifts, DeYoung concedes, with seeming reluctance, “Women can even have gifts of teaching and leadership” – and they may be “powerful gifts”.
But just as he downgrades Deborah (who led Barak and all Israel) and Priscilla (who taught Apollos), DeYoung does the same to gifted women today: he insists they must not lead or teach men [Ch 8].
Complementarians cannot agree among themselves on whether women may preach “the Sunday Sermon”. So, DeYoung devotes an Appendix to this issue. Addressing fellow complementarians who see nothing wrong with it, he urges them to take a stricter view.
But he offers no explanation for Paul’s urging of both men and women to eagerly desire the greater gifts of being apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Corinthians 12:27-31).
When men refuse the ministry of women leaders and teachers, simply because they are women, it is like one part of the body saying to another part, “I don’t need you” (v21).
I believe Paul would say that DeYoung’s view dishonors gifted women and deprives men who would benefit from their ministry.
Dear brother Kevin, for your own sake, for women’s sake, for men’s sake, for the Lord’s sake, please take off the spectacles and look again.