SPRING 2005

5)&+063/"-'03#*#-*$"- +#.8 ."/)00%80."/)00%

JBMW Responds to Discovering Biblical Equality (IVP, 2004)

 JOURNAL FOR BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD is a biannual publication of Table of Contents The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ISSN: 1544-5143 JBMW Responds to JOURNAL STAFF Discovering Biblical Equality (IVP, 2004) Editor Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Associate Editors Christopher W. Cowan David W. Jones Contributing Editor 4 Editorial Rob Lister Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Senior Consulting Editors J. Ligon Duncan, III Wayne Grudem 7 “Introduction” by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Rebecca Jones Ronald W. Pierce Bruce A. Ware Bruce A. Ware Design Bowin Tichenor 12 “Equality with and without Innocence: Genesis Contributors 1-3” (Ch 4) by Richard S. Hess R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Russell D. Moore J. Ligon Duncan, III Nancy Leigh DeMoss Todd L. Miles 17 “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: CBMW I Corinthians 11:2-16” (Ch 8) by Gordon D. Fee Executive Director ­ Randy Stinson Thomas R. Schreiner JBMW “Learning in the Assemblies: I Corinthians Editorial Correspondence 22 [email protected] 14:34-35” (Ch 9) by Craig S. Keener Subscription Correspondence David P. Nelson [email protected] Orders and Subscriptions “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians Single issue price $10.00. Subscriptions available 29 at $15.00 per year. Canadian Subscriptions 3:26-29” (Ch 10) by Gordon D. Fee $20.00 per year. International Subscriptions $25.00 per year. Ten or more copies to the same Robert Saucy address, $12.00 per year. Contact CBMW for institutional rates. 38 “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: 2825 Lexington Road · Box 926 Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33” Louisville, Kentucky 40280 502.897.4065 (voice) (Ch 11) by I. Howard Marshall 502.897.4061 (fax) [email protected] (e-mail) George W. Knight, III www.cbmw.org (web)

UK Address: CBMW 43 “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 9 Epsom Rd. Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 7AR 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville Annual Subscription £10 Andreas J. Köstenberger The purpose of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the “The Nature of Authority in the ” Bible about the complementary differences between 55 men and women, created equal in the image of (Ch 15) by Walter L. Liefeld God, because these teachings are essential for obedi- ence to Scripture and for the health of the family Paige Patterson and the Church. CBMW is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and the National Association of Evangelicals. SPRING 2005

60 “Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry” (Ch 16) by Stanley J. Grenz Justin Taylor 63 “God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor” (Ch 17) by Judy L. Brown H. Wayne House 72 “‘Equal in Being, Unequal in Role’: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination” (Ch 18) by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Dorothy Patterson 81 “The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women” (Ch 19) by Kevin Giles Peter R. Schemm, Jr. 88 “Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender” (Ch 20) by and “Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate” (Ch 21) by Gordon D. Fee Andreas J. Köstenberger 96 “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy” (Ch 22) and “Gender Equality and Homosexuality” (Ch 23) by William J. Webb Wayne Grudem 121 “In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem” (Ch 25) by Joan Burgess Winfrey Rebecca Jones 126 Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Articles in 2004 Rob Lister

 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 4-6 Editorial Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Dean, Southeastern College at Wake Forest Associate Professor of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

In 1991 a cadre of complementar- consensus that it represents us well. Still ian scholars published what has become in print today, this text is well received known in popular circles as “the big by students whose instructors argue for a blue book” or “RBMW.” It is in no way traditional view of gender roles—in our an overstatement to say that Recovering estimation, it remains the uncontested, Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited single volume work of its kind. Though its by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, is contributors come from a variety of theo- one of the most significant evangelical logical backgrounds, RBMW is united in books on gender that has been published its robust and winsome vision of biblical in the past two or three decades. Indeed, manhood and womanhood. It is at once in 1993 RBMW won Christianity Today’s clear, charitable, and convincing. book of the year. Nearly a decade and a half later, RBMW includes the officially egalitarians have now offered their published copy of the widely affirmed written response to RBMW. The work Danvers Statement around which com- is titled Discovering Biblical Equal- plementarians have united since 1987. ity: Complementarity Without Hierarchy Though not all complementarians affirm (DBE), edited by Ronald W. Pierce and every detail of every chapter of the book, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with contrib- nevertheless, there has been a strong uting editor Gordon D. Fee (Downers

COUNCIL MEMBERS Daniel Heimbach John Piper Lane T. Dennis D. James Kennedy Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. Joseph M. Stowell, III Daniel L. Akin H. Wayne House James A. Stahr Thomas R. Edgar Beverly LaHaye J. I. Packer Larry Walker Donald Balasa Susan Hunt K. Erik Thoennes Jerry Falwell Gordon R. Lewis Paige Patterson Stu Weber Timothy B. Bayly Elliott Johnson Bruce A. Ware John Frame Robert Lewis Dennis & Barbara Rainey William Weinrich James Borland Peter Jones Paul Gardner Crawford & Karen Loritts Pat Robertson Luder Whitlock Austin Chapman Rebecca Jones BOARD OF REFERENCE W. Robert Godfrey Erwin Lutzer Adrian & Joyce Rogers Peter Williamson Jack Cottrell Mary Kassian Hudson T. Armerding Bill H. Haynes John F. MacArthur, Jr. Robert Saucy J. Ligon Duncan, III Heather Moore S. M. Baugh David M. Howard Connie Marshner James Sauer Steve Farrar George W. Knight, III Wallace Benn R. Kent Hughes Richard Mayhue Siegfried Schatzmann Mary Farrar C. J. Mahaney Tal Brooke James B. Hurley Marty Minton Thomas R. Schreiner Wayne A. Grudem R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Harold O. J. Brown Paul Karleen J. P. Moreland F. LaGard Smith Joshua Harris Dorothy Patterson Nancy Leigh DeMoss Charles & Rhonda Kelley J. Stanley Oakes R. C. Sproul  SPRING 2005

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004). It is said chy.” As complementarians we are not to be “the first comprehensive scholarly prepared to give the language of “com- collection of essays from an egalitarian plementarian”—a term intentionally perspective to have been published in coined by those who framed the Danvers 1 North America in the past thirty years.” Statement—over to egalitarians. DBE is The book is not identified formally as a not the first work in which egalitarians “rejoinder,” and several of the chapters have attempted to broaden the scope of in DBE do not even interact with their the term “complementarian” in order to counterparts in RBMW. Yet it is clearly a include their own view (e.g., see Kevin response to RBMW— its title, cover, and Giles’s attempt to distinguish between the order of the table of contents each “egalitarian-complementarian” and “hier- mirroring RBMW. As coeditor Ronald archical-complementarian” in The Trinity Pierce says, “I have dreamed of a volume and Subordinationism [Downers Grove: like DBE for decades…. I wanted a text InterVarsity, 2002], 156ff.). Egalitar- to set beside John Piper and Wayne ians, however, have yet to demonstrate Grudem’s 1991 comprehensive work … why it is that “complementarity without so that my students could read a strong hierarchy” is a legitimate way to describe defense of both views from a wide array their view. of recognized scholars and make up their In fact, as Bruce Ware points out 2 own minds.” in his review of the “Introduction,” even It is fitting, then, forJBMW to offer the editors of DBE agree that there is “no a timely response to DBE—a rejoinder to middle ground.” In our estimation, what the rejoinder, as it were. There are at least egalitarians are trying to say has very three reasons why this edition of JBMW little to do with “complementarity” and will be especially useful for years to come. everything to do with “gender equality.” First, its format allows for easy access to By “equality” they mean that there is no complementarian critiques of the most unique role for male leadership in the important chapters of DBE. Though home and the church. Male headship, we have not covered every chapter, the however, is the foundation of the genu- chapters treated are representative of inely “complementarian” view. Indeed, the entire book. Second, this edition has there is no middle ground. Once one lasting value because it contains the work departs from the beauty of God’s good of several stalwart complementarians. We design for role differences between the take this show of unity by complementar- sexes, egalitarianism makes all the sense ians to be very encouraging and hope that in the world. it reflects the strength of the traditional It is understandable that both view of gender roles among evangelicals. “egalitarians” and “complementarians” Third, each contributor represents our may want to qualify these labels. After all, view well. These articles are loaded with who on either side is comfortable with keen exegetical and theological insights. saying that one word perfectly summa- It has truly been an honor for our edito- rizes their view? The solution, however, rial staff to work with each and every is not to link both views to the particular contributor on this project. term “complementarian” which has been We need to make an important accepted as representing one of the views statement about the subtitle of DBE: for some time. This does not bring clarity “Complementarity Without Hierar- to the discussion, only more confusion.  Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 7-11

Further, in what sense does “egalitarian” asked that the God of all comfort would retain its distinctive meaning when at- minister to them as they mourn the loss tached to “complementarian”? Egalitar- of a son, a brother, a father, a grandfather, ians are free to use whatever language and a friend. And second, to the fam- they wish. In the end, however, they are ily and friends of the late Edmund P. not “complementarians” since more than Clowney, particularly council members a decade of evangelical literature on the Dr. & Mrs. Peter Jones (son-in-law and subject identifies complementarians as daughter, Rebecca) at the loss of their those who affirm role distinctions based father, our prayer is that they will not on masculinity and femininity accord- grieve as those who have no hope, but ing to God’s good design in the created rather, that they will look forward with order. certainty to the future resurrection of a A few administrative matters need glorious body—“[it] is sown in corrup- to be mentioned regarding the format tion, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown of this issue of the Journal. First, every in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown review article follows the exact title of in weakness, it is raised in power” (1 Cor the chapter in DBE. This is in order to 15:42-44). It is well for us to number our simplify access to a particular article in days as we remember that our earthly database searches. Second, all parentheti- lives are like a vapor that appears for a cal page references in this issue, unless little while and then vanishes away. otherwise indicated, refer to the page number in DBE, for example, (242). 1 Third, not all of the articles follow the Ronald W. Pierce, “Academic Alert: IVP’s Book Bul- same format. We hope this will be an letin for Professors,” 14, no. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 3. asset and not a liability, allowing for some 2 Ibid., 6. variety from the contributors. On behalf of The Council on Bibli- cal Manhood and Womanhood, we want to thank Bruce Ware for his commend- able and faithful work as editor of JBMW over the last four years. Thankfully, he has agreed to serve as a Senior Consult- ing Editor writing for the Journal in the future. His expertise, and perhaps more importantly, his gracious and godly ex- ample will be missed. In his place, I will serve as editor hoping to represent the Journal and CBMW well. Finally, on a sobering note, we would like to offer our deepest condo- lences to two families in their recent losses. First, to the family and friends of the late Stanley J. Grenz at the event of his unexpected, untimely death, our prayer is like that of Justin Taylor who at the beginning of his review article has  SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 7-11 “Introduction” by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce Bruce A. Ware Senior Associate Dean, School of Theology Professor of Christian Theology The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Kentucky

In the Introduction to their edited any aspect of sacred Scripture, volume, Discovering Biblical Equality: since it is all equally God- Complementarity Without Hierarchy, Ron- breathed and profitable for all ald Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis identify of life (2 Tim 3:15-17) (14). some of the convictions and commitments that undergird the overall position of their Upon reading the commitment to book, including this important claim: full biblical truthfulness and authority expressed by these words, biblical comple- Biblical egalitarianism (as op- mentarians (as the movement has come posed to any brand of secular to be known over the past two decades, or pagan feminism) is bibli- and as defined and defended in Recover- 1 cally based and kingdom ing Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ) focused. It does not rest its can only rightly respond with a hearty arguments on secular political “Amen.” Without any hesitation or movements or a theologically qualification, complementarians likewise liberal denial of the Scripture’s express their zealous and heart-felt com- full and objective truth and mitment to the full inspiration, inerrancy, authority for all time. More- and divine authority of the whole of the over, biblical egalitarians apply Scriptures. So, it is clear from the outset the basic historical-grammati- of this book that the debate is over the cal method of interpretation actual content of the teaching of Scripture and the best principles of the- itself. “Agreed!” we say with excitement to ologizing to their task. They our egalitarian brothers and sisters, “this make no appeal to “women’s debate with you is over, and should be consciousness” as normative; over, just what Scripture teaches about the neither do they feel free to nature and roles of men and women.” dispense with or underplay Given this common commitment  Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

to the authority of Scripture, we would thority on the basis of gender hope that both sides, then, would say, alone? Likewise, do wives “May the best man [sic?] win.” That is, share equally with husbands may the side that shows most clearly and in leadership and decision convincingly just what Scripture teaches making in marriage, or does be vindicated; may the side that defends the husband have a unique and displays most closely the truthfulness responsibility and privilege of Scripture itself be shown to be correct; to make final decisions, based may the side which most fully honors on his gender alone? The an- the truth and wisdom of Scripture’s own swers to these questions will teaching triumph in this debate; and may continue to distinguish clearly that position which accords most closely between the male leadership with Scripture itself prevail in our lives, and gender equality positions our homes, and our churches. Because (17). our common commitment is to Scripture’s authority and not to our own views, per Yes, indeed: There is no middle se, those on both sides should pray and ground. And we complementarians agree. long for the day when one view—the Since the egalitarian and complementar- view most fully expressive of Scripture’s ian positions are mutually exclusive in truthful teaching—is embraced fully and their central claims, as indicated by the broadly among Christians and Christian two questions just cited, and since both of communities. two mutually exclusive positions cannot Some might think at this point, “but both be correct, then it follows, as Pierce is it necessary to pit one view against the and Groothuis have asserted, that there is other? That is, might there not be some no middle ground. Either one position via media, some ‘middle position,’ which is fundamentally correct and the other is incorporates the best of both views?” fundamentally wrong, or both positions Again, it is refreshing to read that Pierce are fundamentally wrong; but it cannot and Groothuis dismiss this “possibility” be the case that both positions are fun- just as much as complementarians do. damentally correct. Therefore, no “middle They write, position” that seeks to bring the “best of 2 both” together is possible. The nature of Though we speak strongly the debate, then, is clear: What is the one in favor of unity, points of position of Scripture’s teaching that most agreement and dialogue, it closely reflects God’s own understand- must be noted at the start ing, as presented in divinely inspired and that we see no middle ground authoritative Scripture, of the nature and on this question. The notion roles of men and women? of complementarity is helpful Having established that the debate and must be pursued, but two between complementarians and egalitar- essential questions remain. ians is most centrally about what Scripture Are all avenues of ministry teaches, and having agreed also that there and leadership open to women is no middle position possible, I now as well as men, or are women wish to suggest the following: Because restricted from certain roles the complementarian view, in one form and subordinated to male au- or another, has been the church’s long-  SPRING 2005

standing position and clear majority pertinent scriptural teaching is under- view throughout its entire history, and played or dispensed with, does this not because the Bible’s own statements, when call into question whether this egalitarian taken prima facie and interpreted in the proposal can possibly carry the weight most natural ways of understanding their necessary to supplant the church’s his- meanings, support the complementar- toric complementarian view? ian position, the burden of proof to the Consider with me one example contrary rests squarely on the egalitar- where the thoughtful reader of Discov- ians. That is, both church history and ering Biblical Equality might wonder natural interpretive meanings of biblical whether Scripture’s teaching has been texts relating to roles of men and women accounted for adequately. As one reads would give the stronger starting position, Paul’s and Peter’s admonitions that are as it were, to the complementarian view. directed specifically to husbands and Readers of Discovering Biblical Equality, wives, one notes that there is a particular then, should look carefully to see whether imperative given to wives in each of such such a compelling case is offered that its cases, regardless of the larger context. In view of “biblical equality” of male-female each case, wives are told one thing, the roles must replace the normative position same thing, in all four of these New Tes- that has prevailed previously. Certainly tament passages: They are told to “submit this is possible, to be sure. But unless we to” or “be subject to” or be “submissive to” find such a compelling case, we simply their husbands. Here they are for the 3 should not desert Scripture’s apparent reader to see: meaning as understood throughout the history of the church. Wives, submit to your own As one reads Discovering Bibli- husbands, as to the Lord. cal Equality, one should keep in mind, For the husband is the head particularly, the claim of the editors that of the wife even as Christ is biblical egalitarians simply do not “feel the head of the church, his free to dispense with or underplay any body, and is himself its Savior. aspect of sacred Scripture, since it is all Now as the church submits to equally God-breathed and profitable for Christ, so also wives should all of life (2 Tim 3:15-17)” (14). Since submit in everything to their they claim to uphold the full inspiration husbands (Eph 5:22-24). and authority of Scripture, this claim is important. And so, we should consider Wives, submit to your husbands, how well this claim is worked out in as is fitting in the Lord (Col dealing with relevant passages from 3:18). Scripture that pertain to the questions before us. Do these egalitarian writers Older women likewise are to uphold their stated commitment not to be reverent in behavior, not dispense with or underplay any aspect of slanderers or slaves to much sacred Scripture? Should this not be a wine. They are to teach what question thoughtful readers would have is good, and so train the in mind as they consider the argumen- young women to love their tation throughout Discovering Biblical husbands and children, to be Equality? And if it is the case that some self-controlled, pure, working  Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

at home, kind, and submissive Testament letters contain this one com- to their own husbands, that mon command to wives each time they the word of God may not be are addressed specifically, and that both reviled (Titus 2:3-5). Paul and Peter share in common this same message and emphasis, and that the Likewise, wives, be subject to command is made to wives in different your own husbands, so that churches and different cultural settings, even if some do not obey the would incline one to conclude that this word, they may be won with- must be among the most important as- out a word by the conduct of pects of a wife’s relationship to her hus- their wives—when they see band. To miss this is to miss something your respectful and pure con- highly significant about being a wife, as duct. Do not let your adorn- God intends it. And certainly, as Paul ing be external—the braiding develops the point in Ephesians 5, the of hair, the wearing of gold, significance of the wife’s submission can or the putting on of cloth- be understood more fully because God ing—but let your adorning intends her submission to her husband be the hidden person of the to be a picture of the church’s submission heart with the imperishable to Christ. beauty of a gentle and quiet But can one rightly say that Discov- spirit, which in God’s sight is ering Biblical Equality fails to “dispense very precious. For this is how with or underplay” this aspect of sacred the holy women who hoped Scripture? So obvious yet forceful a point in God used to adorn them- as this surely would not be overlooked selves, by submitting to their or its significance unaccounted for in husbands, as Sarah obeyed a book of this size, would it? I leave it Abraham, calling him lord. to the reader to ask this question and And you are her children, if many more like it: Is the clear mean- you do good and do not fear ing and force of Scripture explained anything that is frightening and accounted for by the authors of this (1 Pet 3:1-6). volume? And, do they make a case that would challenge the church’s historic It would seem a simple and yet a complementarian position? Because this highly significant observation to make, debate is about what Scripture teaches, from these texts, that every single direct we pray that the position which most imperative and admonition to wives faithfully, clearly, compellingly, and accu- requires of them the same responsibil- rately explains and defends that inspired ity: Besides other things that are said to teaching will be shown to be right. For them, they are commanded in every case the sake of the church, and for the glory to submit to their husbands. The force of of God, may the best man win! this point in the current debate is strong indeed, and it certainly is relevant to the

question of whether the egalitarian posi- 1 tion treats every aspect of Scripture fully John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recover- ing Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response and does not diminish or disregard any to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, of it. The fact that four different New 1991), esp. xiii-xv. 10 SPRING 2005

2 This is the fundamental flaw of Sarah Sumner’s book, Men and Women in the Church: Building a Consensus on Christian Leadership (Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity, 2003). Sumner portrays her own position as constructing a consensus for and via media between these rival positions, but it is clear that her position is centrally and fundamentally egalitarian and only superficially complementarian. For another comple- mentarian who likewise sees Sumner’s proposal as thinly-veiled egalitarianism, see Dorothy Patterson, “Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church: A Review Article,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8, no.1 (Spring 2003): 39-50. Even Ron Pierce himself is puzzled just how to identify Sarah Sumner’s position. In his chapter three that surveys “Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality,” he comments, “Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church (2003) is a difficult work to place in the present survey. . . . [S]he attempts to avoid taking sides on the issue while seeking to encourage dialogue and build a consensus among evangelicals. While her goal is admirable, the reader is left somewhat in the dark as to the substance of and basis for her 3 conclusions” (74). All citations are from the English Standard Version (all italics added).

11 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 12-16 “Equality with and without Innocence: Genesis 1-3” (Ch 4) by Richard S. Hess J. Ligon Duncan, III Senior Pastor First Presbyterian Church Jackson, Mississippi

The fundamental biblical teaching edges that “Genesis 1-3 may contain on manhood and womanhood finds its more doctrinal teaching concerning hu- fountainhead (like so many other key manity as male and female, as well as the Christian doctrines) in the first three state of the fallen world, than any other chapters of the Bible. Furthermore, single text in the Bible” (79). But when the apostle Paul gives us the definitive, he reaches his conclusion, there is pre- inspired, new covenant expositions and cious little left to be learned from these applications of this passage to the issue chapters about biblical manhood and of male-female role relationships in the womanhood. He seems more interested church in 1 Timothy 2-3, and in marriage in asserting what Genesis 1-3 does not and family in Ephesians 5. Naturally, say, than in making significant positive then, Genesis 1-3 has been a key text in affirmations for our lives together as man the ongoing debate between evangelical and woman. This suggests that Genesis egalitarians and complementarians. In 1-3 is unfriendly ground for egalitar- Discovering Biblical Equality, chapter ians, one on which they must simply try four, “Equality with and without In- to hold their own, rather than make a nocence,” Richard Hess, Old Testament positive case. Professor and husband of a Presbyterian To be welcomed and applauded is Church (USA) minister, has the unenvi- Hess’s affirmation that “Genesis 1-3 is a able task of attempting to make a positive matter of God’s revealed will for his peo- case for evangelical egalitarianism and to ple so that they might live in communion reply to the moving and pastoral exposi- with him” (79). However, his attempt tion of this great passage by Ray Ortlund, to discount the significance of Moses’ Jr., found in Recovering Biblical Manhood use of ’adam as his term for mankind is 1 and Womanhood. problematic for a robust embrace of the Hess begins well when he acknowl- plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. 12 SPRING 2005

Hess argues that since the “generic ’adam is to be restricted merely to the concept was part of the West Semitic lexicon of dominion. His observations are sug- before Genesis 1-3 was revealed and gestive,2 but his deductions are arbitrary3 written in the form in which it occurs and simply asserted—not proven, or even . . . it is somewhat inaccurate to suggest adequately argued. that there was a conscious divine decision Indeed, the demonstration of argu- to use a masculine term to describe the ment throughout the article is surpris- human race” (80). Nonetheless, since the ingly sparse and can be summarized in Bible makes it clear that every word of seven points. (1) Hebrew has only two Scripture is given by inspiration (2 Tim genders and thus there are no theological 3:16) and that no prophetic word was implications of the Hebrew use of the ever given, nor any prophecy “ever made masculine in reference to mankind in by an act of human will, but men moved general in Genesis 1-3, and therefore by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 also no implications for male-female Pet 1:21), and since Paul tells the Thes- distinctions or distinct role relationships salonians that he constantly thanked God (79-80). (2) The doctrine of the image “because when you received the word of of God in man has nothing to say about God which you heard from us, you ac- male-female role relationships, only cepted it not as the word of men, but for about dominion (80-82). (3) Genesis what it really is, the word of God, which 1:26-28 does not have anything to say also performs its work in you who believe” about male-female role relationship dis- (1 Thess 2:13), and since himself tinctions. It only affirms the equality of made biblical arguments that rested on male and female (82; though this latter the tense of just one word of Scripture, fact is asserted without any argumenta- the Christian is going to take care to tion). (4) The creation order of male first, consider the significance of every single then female, does not indicate headship word of Scripture, out of reverence for (83-86; despite the apostle Paul’s explicit God’s word and out of devotion to our insistence to the contrary—more on that Lord. Thus, we are never wise simply to later). (5) The term “helper” in Genesis assume that the special terminology of 2 in reference to the woman does not Scripture is simply reflective of cultural indicate role distinctions or male head- linguistic norms, and without any further ship (86-87). (6) Adam’s naming of the theological significance. animals does not indicate his dominion Hess also wants to aver that the over them, and so his naming of Eve relationality of humanity as male and does not indicate headship (87). (7) Male female, though reflective of the nature headship is a result of the Fall, but is not of God, is not itself part of the image the ideal for husband-wife relations (89- of God. He says that the text “does not 90, 94-95). explicitly identify this as part of the im- Several points deserve special men- age of God that all people possess” (81). tion in this series of contentions. First, But this kind of reductionist Hess is to be applauded for not pitting cannot comport with Paul’s exposition Genesis 1 and 2 against one another, as in Ephesians 5. This whole section of was the manner of the critics of old and Hess’s piece, though interesting, is hardly some feminist scholars of late. Hess is persuasive, and certainly fails to sustain on record denying this contradiction, the case that the image of God in man and this is a cause for appreciation for 13 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

all those with a high view of Scripture Hess’s same contention that the creation (82). order has no significance for headship Second, Hess’s denial that the order and —instead of of creation (male, then female) reveals engaging the unfriendly turf of a sub- anything about complementarity or stantive wrestling with the implications headship does so only by ignoring any of 1 Timothy 2, which he dismisses significance of Paul’s exposition of Gen- with the wave of a hand in one-half of esis 1-2 in 1 Timothy 2. Grant for a mo- a one-sentence paragraph, Hess spends ment that Paul is only making an ad hoc two fruitless pages on primogeniture. It argument there to the Ephesian church, is a classic strategy of diversion. But even speaking to a specific situation of abuse though he puts his eggs in that basket and without any implication for other in attempting to deflect the force of the cultural or ecclesial situations (a view to significance of male-female creation or- which I would strenuously object); even der as a telling argument against his own so, it is obvious that Paul is making this position, the very biblical stories he cites argument regarding the restriction of to defend his analysis of the question women from certain functions in the of primogeniture support the comple- church (whatever its nature or extent) mentarian application of the arguments based on a deduction he makes from of Tom Schreiner, which Hess is trying the order, the sequence of the creation to refute. For example, Hess says that of man and woman in Genesis 1-2. Paul there is no evidence of primogeniture in may be (and has been) mocked for such the patriarchal stories, since second and an argument, but there is no use debating third sons sometimes end up with the his meaning. It is crystal clear. Let me blessings. But this completely misses the state the argument again in a minimalist patently obvious point of the biblical nar- way for the sake of illustration: Accord- rative. In the stories of Ishmael and Isaac, ing to Paul, certain women are to refrain Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers, and indeed to be restricted from certain and Ephraim and Manasseh, the whole activities in the Ephesian church because plot turns on a reversal of the expected, of the fact that God created Adam first, natural order of blessing because of God’s then Eve.4 We may not like Paul’s view gracious, sovereign, overruling choice. of the meaning and significance of the You are meant to expect one brother creation order of male then female in to be blessed because of primogeniture, Genesis 1-2, or his application of it. We and to be surprised and educated by his may not accept that view and application, non-receipt of it, and his young sibling’s but that it is indeed Paul’s view and ap- corresponding reception of it. So, without plication of Genesis 1-2 is incontrovert- some sort of primogeniture assumed, ible. And because Christians understand those passages, so charged with irony, that the New Testament is in many ways twists, and turns are flattened out and one God’s divinely inspired hermeneutical of their main points is utterly lost. manual for the Old Testament, when a Fourth, Hess’s insistence that “the New Testament passage tells you what text nowhere states that the man exer- an Old Testament passage means, for an cised authority over the animals by nam- orthodox Christian that interpretation ing them” (87) is notably obtuse. How becomes a matter of dogma. explicit does Moses have to be before Third—and in connection with this point is conceded? In Gen 1:26, God 14 SPRING 2005

explicitly gives man rule or dominion or mankind as male and female.7 Further- stewardship authority over all animals. more, the article’s counter arguments to Scant verses later, in the parallel account the classical, historic, Christian exposi- in Gen 2:19-20, we come across Adam’s tion of this text’s teaching on manhood naming of the animals. God makes them, and womanhood amount to a series of then Adam names them—action of the undemonstrated assertions, accompanied Lord followed by the privilege-action of by interesting but tangential observations his steward and vice-regent. The signifi- with no direct, obvious (and certainly not cance of names and naming in ancient conclusive) bearing on the debate. All the near-eastern cultures is well-known.5 In- main complementarian points, adeptly deed, even in our culture today, feminists, set forth by Ray Ortlund in Recovering who wish to throw off the “oppression” Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and by of patriarchy in marriage, sometimes many other complemetarians elsewhere, either do not take their husband’s name, remain untouched by this rejoinder. The or simply add his to their own. The point fault does not lie with Hess’s abilities, is obvious—a woman who does this does but with the inherent weakness of the not want to intimate some kind of “sub- position he is espousing. ordination” to her husband through the loss of her name and the corresponding 1 replacement of it with her husband’s. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical This is an indication of the ongoing way Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne even our modern secular Anglo-Ameri- Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991): 95-112. 2 can culture6 perceives the significance of For instance, Hess says, “What then is the meaning of the terms image (tselem) and likeness (demuth), used names for male-female role relationships here to describe the image of God? It is best illustrated in marriage, and is illustrative of the same in the practice of ancient Near Eastern kings of erect- principle beautifully and positively seen ing or carving out images in order to represent their power and rulership over far-reaching areas of their in Adam’s naming of Eve (Gen 2:21-23). empires. These represented the dominion of the ruler Note there again the identical pattern when the sovereign was not present in the region (see of the Lord making and Adam naming. Dan 3:1)” (81). Now, as useful as that observation is as Of course, it is this latter inference that an illustration of the term/idea of image of God, it is a static illustration (the image is a thing), whereas those Hess is attempting to avoid by his denial who understand the biblical concept of the image of of Adam’s authoritative stewardship be- God understand that it is dynamic (the image entails both constituent character and action). ing manifested in naming the animals. 3 For instance, Hess asserts, “The only divine statement Naming is an act of leadership—a point regarding the creation of ’adam that can apply to the so obvious as to require no argumentation image of God is the command to have dominion whatsoever. over the whole earth” (81). Hess gives precious little basis for such a sweeping averment, given the tens It will undoubtedly be disappoint- of thousands of passages of discussion on this one ing to pre-committed egalitarian readers topic in orthodox Christian theology for the last of Discovering Biblical Equality to discov- two millennia. 4 Actually, the facts indicate a much broader argument er an exposition of a text like Genesis 1-3 by Paul. That Paul’s proscription of Christian women that is unable to generate any positive, teaching authoritatively in the church is norma- constructive, exegetical or theological tive and universal, and not merely a limited, ad hoc response to a specific case of abuse, is seen by the argumentation for the egalitarian posi- following: (1) He is speaking generically in 1 Tim 2:8- tion—especially considering the author’s 15 about what he wants men as a class, and women own admission that this is perhaps the as a class to do; (2) he speaks in 1 Tim 2:11-12 of “a most fertile text in the Bible regarding woman” using the singular in order to refer to women as a class, and without specifying “certain” women who 15 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

were out of accord with his teaching and practice; and (3) he emphasizes in 1 Tim 3:14-15 that his teaching is normative for all the churches: “I am writing these things to you . . . so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God.” This is precisely what Paul does in 1 Cor 14:34-38. I present the minimalist argument above to show that the egalitarian author does not escape the horns of the dilemma regarding Paul’s appeal to the creation order, simply by arguing that Paul’s instruction about women teaching and holding authority was culture bound or situational. Even if it were, Paul is basing his argument on something intrinsic to the creation order. It should also be noted that Paul’s proscription is not merely official, but functional. That is, he does not say that women cannot have the title or office but they can exercise the function of an elder. He says instead that women cannot exercise the function of an elder, because of the creation order. 5 “Giving a name to anyone or anything was tantamount to owning or controlling it (Gen. 1:5, 8, 10, 2:19-20; II Sam. 12:28)” (Ronald Youngblood, “Names in Bible Times, Significance of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], 750). Thus, in the case of Adam naming the woman (as he had named the animals and as God himself had named the light, the heavens, the earth, and the seas), the task for the complementarian preacher is simultaneously to articulate the witness of the text to loving male spiritual headship in mar- riage and the church, and also to prevent abuse of the implications and application of this manifestation of male headship. However, it is vain to deny that Adam’s naming of Eve is a manifestation of male headship in the pristine creation order. 6 I am well aware of the fact that numerous contempo- rary cultures handle naming and marriage quite dif- ferently than Anglo-Americans. Very close to home, for instance, is the Hispanic culture that has a very different practice, but not on feminist grounds. My point here is simply illustrative of the fact that even contemporary cultures grasp the point that naming and “power” are connected. I hasten to note that one of the beauties of the Christian complementarian view is that the husband’s “power,” his spiritual authority and leadership responsibility, must always be exercised in the best interests of his wife and family. Thus self-de- nial and tangible love constantly attend and constrain all husbandly authority in marriage. 7 Indeed, throughout the article Hess simply assumes “equality” is a legitimate descriptive and explana- tory category for male and female in Genesis 1-3, without once making a case for it, or even defining “equality.”

16 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 17-21 “Praying and Prophesy- ing in the Assemblies: I Corinthians 11:2-16” (Ch 8) by Gordon D. Fee Thomas R. Schreiner Associate Dean, Scripture and Interpretation Professor of New Testament Interpretation The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Kentucky

Introduction the relaxed nature of Paul’s response, has written an out- for the language of shame and honor standing commentary on 1 Corinthians, in the text would have spoken power- and hence he is a natural choice for this fully to the culture of Paul’s day and article on 1 Cor 11:2-16 in Discovering would underscore the seriousness of his Biblical Equality. He divides his article admonitions. Moreover, as we shall see, into an introduction, an analysis of the Fee underemphasizes the importance presenting issue in Corinth, an overview of v. 3 in the Pauline argument. On the of Paul’s response, the matter of women other hand, Fee rightly suggests that praying and prophesying, the meaning the problem in the text probably relates of the term “head,” and the meaning of mainly to the women, rather than to both 1 Cor 11:10. In this review I will follow men and women (contrary to Collins 1 Fee’s outline in responding to him. and Thiselton), and that the verses seem Fee emphasizes the difficulty of the to relate to men and women in general text in the introduction and in his analy- rather than being limited to husbands sis of the presenting issue, and argues that and wives. Furthermore, he also correctly Paul’s response to it is “generally relaxed” maintains that determining whether the (142) and that Paul is not scolding the cultural practice was some kind of head Corinthians. No one disputes that the covering or related to the hairstyle of text is complicated, and there are some women is not crucial either for unpacking dimensions of the text that will always the meaning of the text or for discerning elude certainty (such as the reference to its contemporary application. angels in v. 10). Nevertheless, the burden of the text may still be discerned by read- Fee’s Overview of the Text ers today, even if we cannot solve every In Fee’s overview of the passage, question. Furthermore, Fee overstates he argues that a woman who prays and 17 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

prophesies without proper adornment (contrary to Fee) is that the reason given brings shame on both herself and on man in v. 3 and the reasons posited in vv. 7-9 as the head. He claims that the argument are complementary, so that it is not as in v. 3 does “not control the whole pas- if Paul abandons the argument from sage” and is abandoned as Paul continues headship as he continues his explana- his argument (146). He quickly sketches tion. Indeed, vv. 7-9 clarify that the role in the argument of the rest of the passage, difference between men and women is and concludes that the text centers on fundamental to Paul’s entire argument, issues of honor and shame. One of the for it hails from the created order where main weaknesses of Fee’s article surfaces the Lord clarified that women were cre- here, for he devotes so much attention on ated from men and for the sake of men. the meaning of “head” and the disputed Fee’s very sketchy exegesis of vv. 8-9 1 Cor 11:10 that little space is left for an blurs this point, so that the reader of his explanation of the text as a whole. Fee’s essay fails to see that Paul locates the role essay does not provide a clear and lucid differences between men and women in explanation of the flow of the argument the created order. The argument from in the text. Nor is he particularly clear creation is a transcultural argument, for as to the main point of the text and its it appeals to God’s intended pattern for relevance for today. I think a reader who human beings before the fall into sin. The came to Fee’s essay desiring an overview importance of an argument from creation of the passage would finish the article is confirmed when we realize that Paul’s feeling frustrated, for he concentrates argument against homosexuality also ap- on a few issues and does not explicate peals to creation (Rom 1:26-27), as does as clearly the function and meaning of Jesus’ argument against divorce (Matt the entire unit. Fee’s main point seems 19:3-12 par.). to be that the text supports distinctions between the sexes during the present evil, Prayer and Prophecy but in my judgment he strays from what Fee proceeds to discuss women the text teaches in particular as to how praying and prophesying. He rightly these distinctions are to be preserved. claims that women should be able to pray Nor is he convincing in minimizing and prophesy in the assembly, but his dis- the force of 1 Cor 11:3 in the text as a cussion is abstracted from the argument whole, for the argument of the passage and not linked with the remainder of the functions as follows. The main point of text in a meaningful way. He imports 1 the verses is found in vv. 4-6, v. 10a, and Corinthians 12-14 into the argument vv. 13-15, viz., Paul wants the women to here, so that he wrongly focuses on adorn themselves in a proper way. Paul speaking in tongues in discussing prayer. gives reasons for the admonition in v. 3, Furthermore, he indiscriminately lumps vv. 7-9, v. 10b, and v. 16. Verses 11-12 together prophesying and teaching, qualify the argument, so that the readers claiming that prayer and prophecy rep- will not draw the false conclusions that resent every form of ministry, so that we women are inferior to men or that men can conclude from this text that women can dispense with women. Even though are permitted to teach men as well. Fee women have a different role from men, fails to convince here, for Paul regularly they are equal to men in dignity, essence, distinguishes between the gifts (Rom and value. What is crucial to see here 12:6-7; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11), and 18 SPRING 2005

enjoins elsewhere that women are not to Headship teach or exercise authority over men (1 Fee also includes a long section Tim 2:11-12). Prophecy is not the same on “head” (kephalē), which is clearly a gift as teaching, for the latter represents crucial term in the passage. He argues the transmission of tradition or Scrip- that the term means “source” rather ture which involves preparation before than “authority over” in 1 Cor 11:3. His delivery. Prophecy, on the other hand, is discussion here is quite unsatisfying and the transmission of spontaneous revela- unpersuasive. He does not interact at tions from God (1 Cor 14:29-33). This all with the numerous articles by Wayne is confirmed by the prophetic ministry Grudem on this term or the careful study 2 of Agabus who received spontaneous of Joseph Fitzmyer. He is correct, in revelations from God about the famine in my opinion, in suggesting that the term Jerusalem and Paul’s imprisonment (Acts may mean “source” in Eph 4:15 and Col 3 11:27-28; 21:10-11). His prophecies 2:19, but he underestimates the many were not prepared messages, but revela- texts in which the term means “authority tions that came from the Lord that he over,” and fails to see that this is the most conveyed to God’s people. common metaphorical meaning of the Moreover, when women prayed or term. He does acknowledge that “head” prophesied in the church, they were to refers to authority in Eph 1:22 and Col do so with a demeanor that was submis- 2:10, but claims that such is not decisive sive to male leadership. Such a read- for texts in which Christ is said to be ing explains why Paul draws attention the head of the church, since in both to male headship over women before Ephesians and Colossians the emphasis tackling the issue of adornment. What is on Christ’s headship over evil powers. Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians is that Fee rightly remarks that Christ’s head- women should pray and prophesy with ship is “for the sake of the church” (154, proper adornment, for such adornment his italics). But he fails to see that the signified in Paul’s cultural setting that the text also teaches Christ’s authority over women prayed and prophesied in a way the church¸ for Paul emphasizes here that that was submissive to male leadership in Christ is the “head over all things” (Eph the church. I have argued elsewhere that 1:22), and this surely includes the church. the transcendent principle in the passage Moreover, Christ is specifically said to is not how women adorn themselves, be “the head of the church” in Eph 5:23, for the message sent by external adorn- and as we shall see below the meaning ment varies from culture to culture. The in that context is clearly “authority over.” principle is that women are to pray and In addition, the context of Col 1:18 also prophesy in such a way that they do not demonstrates that Jesus’ headship over subvert male authority in the church. Fee the church emphasizes his sovereign says that the text is not about church or- rule over the church, for the key themes der, and clearly it is not a detailed manual in Col 1:15-20 are Christ’s supremacy on such, but it does relate to how women and lordship over both creation and the are to conduct themselves in the gathered church. assembly, so in that sense church order is Fee insists that when the husband in view. is called the head of the wife in Eph 5:23 this means that the husband is the source for the wife’s material sustenance. But 19 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

nothing is said about material support is quite surprising that egalitarians fail elsewhere in this text, and the focus is on to see that simply saying that the word Christ’s spiritual provision for his people, means “source” does not verify their case so it seems like a leap to see a reference regarding male and female roles. Fee to material support provided by the hus- also makes the mistake of saying that the band here. Even more important, Fee notion that God is the head of Christ is fails to examine the context in which the “heterodox.” He betrays here a remark- term “head” is used in Ephesians 5. Note ably weak understanding of church his- the argument in Eph 5:22-24, “Wives, tory since orthodox theologians from the submit to your own husbands, as to the time of the early fathers, the Reformers, Lord. For the husband is the head of and even up to our own day have argued the wife even as Christ is the head of the for differences between the economic and church, his body, and is himself its Savior. immanent Trinity, without suggesting for Now as the church submits to Christ, so a moment that Christ had lesser dignity, 4 also wives should submit in everything worth, or value than the Father. It is to their husbands” (ESV). Wives are regrettable that this basic factual error is to submit to husbands because they are repeated so often by egalitarians, so that the head. So too, the church submits to they suggest that those who disagree Jesus Christ because he is her head. The with them are heterodox. If they were emphasis on submission here plainly more conversant with church history indicates that Paul is stressing both the and systematic theology, such a mistake husbands’ authority over their wives and could be avoided. Christ’s authority over the church. Con- text must determine how words are used, 1 Corinthians 11:10 and the collocation of the words “submit” The last part of Fee’s article con- and “head” indicates that “head” refers to sists of a discussion of the notoriously authority here, both when Paul speaks of difficult 1 Cor 11:10. Fee argues that the husband and of Christ. Fee abandons Paul’s wording actually reflects in part the context, which is the most crucial the view of the women in Corinth who consideration in defining the meaning of believed in their own angelic status, so a word, and simply inserts his preferred that they were convinced that they were notion “source” in this instance. beyond the gender distinctions of the Furthermore, even if the word present evil age. Paul then qualifies their “head” always means “source” (which is views with his commentary in vv. 11-12. clearly not the case), the notion of author- The women, according to Fee, had fallen ity is still implied in Pauline literature. If prey to over-realized eschatology, and wives are to submit to husbands because thought they lived in the age to come husbands are their source, then husbands because they spoke in angelic tongues (1 as the source also exercise authority over Cor 13:1). Fee’s explanation is certainly wives since they are to submit to their ingenious, but it stumbles right out of the source! Such a notion is hardly surprising blocks, for there is no evidence that Paul’s in the biblical world where primogeni- wording in v. 10 should be construed as ture was commonly observed. Similarly, citation or paraphrase of the Corinthian fathers and mothers are the source of women. What we have here are clearly their children, and by virtue of such serve Paul’s own words regarding what the as the authority over their children. It women should do. He commands them 20 SPRING 2005

to have a sign of authority on their head Cor 11:10 that is quite supportive of the because of the angels. Even though many meaning “authority over” and strays from scholars argue that the expression cannot the natural reading of the verse. A more have a passive meaning, such a meaning natural reading of the passage is that Paul is clearly the most natural in context. It desires the women to adorn themselves explains well the qualification that im- properly because their adornment in the mediately follows in vv. 11-12, for such cultural world of the first century sig- a qualification which emphasizes the naled whether they were submissive to equality between men and women would male leadership in the gathered assembly. be strange if Paul were already asserting What applies to the church today is not such in v. 10. To say that Paul requires the exact cultural practice commanded the women to have a sign of authority (whether Paul speaks of a veil, shawl, or on their head also fits with the passage hairstyle). It is the principle that women as a whole where Paul commands the should conduct themselves in public wor- women to be adorned properly. It seems ship with a demeanor that affirms and that some of the earliest interpreters of supports male leadership in the church. the text shared the same view, for they Women are encouraged to pray and substituted the term “veil” (kalumma) prophesy in the assembly, and I under- instead of “authority.” Though this read- stand the nearest equivalence to prophesy ing is clearly secondary, it demonstrates today to be the reading of Scripture. that the earliest interpreters understood And yet they are not to engage in these Paul in a way that accords with what is activities in such a way that they arrogate argued here. The reference to the angels male leadership. Women honor men and is difficult and not decisive in any case for avoid shame if they conduct themselves the main point of the passage. It seems as women in the gathered assembly, and that the view that Paul directs the women that means that they behave in such a to have authority on their heads because way that the role distinctions rooted in angels serve as the guardians of Christian the created order are preserved. worship is still the most likely.

1 For a more detailed explanation of my own under- Conclusion standing of these verses, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Gordon Fee is one of the outstand- “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood ing NT scholars among evangelicals & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, of this generation. Nevertheless, his ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 124-39, 485-90. exegesis of 1 Cor 11:2 -16 does not 2 See Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical prove to be convincing. His explana- Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Ques- tion of the text does not provide a clear tions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 544-99; Joseph and satisfying explanation of the flow of Fitzmyer, “Another Look at Kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 503-11. 3 the argument of the entire passage. He Fee is convinced that the term means “source” in these blurs the meaning of prophecy so that it texts. I am suggesting, on the other hand, that the term may have this meaning in these texts. becomes indistinguishable from teach- 4 ing, but these are two different spiritual For helpful studies on this matter, see Robert Letham, “The Man-Woman Debate: Theologi- gifts. He argues that the word “head” cal Comment,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 means “source,” but fails to account for (1990): 65-78; Steven D. Kovach and Peter R. the evidence supporting authority. Fi- Schemm, Jr., “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” Journal of the nally, he suggests an interpretation of 1 Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 461-76. 21 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 22-28 “Learning in the Assemblies: I Corinthians 14:34-35” (Ch 9) by Craig S. Keener David P. Nelson Senior Associate Dean Associate Professor of Christian Theology Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

Craig Keener, in “Learning in the correct to recognize the relationship be- Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” tween church order and Paul’s statements attempts to explain the meaning of Paul’s in 1 Cor 14:34-35. Likewise, Keener is instruction for women to “remain silent” correct that Paul surely does not advo- from an egalitarian perspective. Keener cate the complete silence of women in admits that the passage is difficult and the assembly. I will also argue, however, that it has been read “from various angles” that Keener misunderstands both why by scholars (171). Paul offers this prohibition and how one He is convinced that “most likely should understand the significance of the the passage addresses disruptive ques- prohibition in relation to various cultural tions in an environment where silence settings. That is, Keener is mistaken both was expected of new learners—which about the apostle’s reasoning and his most women were.” The prohibition intention. “also addresses a broader social context Keener’s reading of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in which women were expected not to suffers logical, hermeneutical, and theo- speak much with men to whom they were logical problems. After discussing flaws not related, as a matter or propriety.” By at these three levels, I will suggest a better issuing such restrictions for pedagogical way of understanding Paul’s reasoning and cultural reasons, “Paul thus upholds and intention. church order and avoids appearances of social impropriety; he also supports The Logical Problem learning before speaking.” Keener con- Keener begins his essay by noting cludes: “None of these principles prohibit that “very few churches today take I women in very different cultural settings Corinthians 14:34-35 to mean all that from speaking God’s word” (171). it could possibly mean” (161). By this he I will argue here that Keener is means that a “face-value reading” of the 22 SPRING 2005

text implies “silence as a sign of women’s be unpersuasive, assumes his conclusion subordination” (161). Having dismissed (that Paul cannot mean that women are such a possible reading out of hand, he prohibited from judging the prophets) in concludes, “Thus almost everyone has a his premise (judging prophecy is a task problem with pressing this text literally, assigned to all who prophesy). This leap and interpreters must explain the diver- of logic is troubling. gence between what it states and what The second logical problem appears they believe it means” (161). At this point in the same paragraph as the first (163). Keener has already concluded that (1) the Keener here arrives at two conclusions: text states that women must be silent due (1) It is difficult to prohibit anyone from to some principle of subordination, and Bible teaching or pastoral ministry with- (2) the text must obviously mean some- out also prohibiting them from prophecy thing other than what it actually says. or prayer; and (2) 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a I will not pursue the question of difficult passage to interpret. He arrives whether this is even the proper way of at these conclusions in the following stating the interpretive problem. I think manner: that it is not, and I think Keener under- stands this, even if he does not articulate (1) Nothing in vv. 34-35 it clearly. More troubling are two logical specifies “judging prophets.” problems that underlie Keener’s argu- (2) The text does not suggest ment. that “judging prophets” dem- Keener’s belief that the text must onstrates a higher degree of mean something other than “what it authority than prophesying states” appears to rest on an argument, itself. articulated on p. 163 of the essay, which (3) Many nonegalitarians can be stated in the following form: support the “prohibition of judging prophets” interpreta- (1) Judging prophecy is a task tion of vv. 34-35. assigned to all who prophesy (4) Therefore, we see “how (1 Cor 14:29). difficult it is to target Bible (2) Women can prophesy (1 teaching or pastoral ministry Cor 11:5). without eliminating proph- (3) Therefore, women can ecy or prayer.” judge prophets. (5) And, furthermore, this “ultimately suggests that this Premise one, however, is faulty as it is a difficult text for all mod- assumes that in 14:29 “the others” must ern interpreters, including refer to all prophets without limitation. non-egalitarians.” Yet, vv. 34-35 may actually indicate that “the others” should be understood, in Premises 1 and 2, again, assume context, as “male prophets.” But this is a conclusion that has not been demon- the very position against which Keener is strated by Keener. Premise 3 also has not arguing, one which he claims “has gained been demonstrated by Keener, but even a wide hearing”: “that Paul simply pro- if it were, its bearing on this argument is hibits women from judging prophecy . . lost on me. Still, for the sake of argument, 1 . .” So, Keener, assuming this position to I am willing to grant Keener’s assertions 23 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

in these premises. But if I do, I do not context of 1 Cor 14:34-35 to some extent, see how either of his conclusions follows including citations of texts (e.g., two cita- from these premises. The second conclu- tions from Romans) that in his opinion sion, that the text is difficult, may or may bear on the text in 1 Corinthians 14. Still, not be true. If Keener means to say we primary weight is given by Keener to the should not place too much weight on a way in which “questions” function in Jew- difficult passage, that may be fair enough ish and ancient Mediterranean culture as a general theological principle. It is (165-170). That is, the bulk of his article the first conclusion, though, that is most focuses on texts external to the Scriptures problematic. I fail to understand how in order to interpret 1 Cor 14:34-35. exactly this conclusion obtains from the In the end it is Keener’s conclusion, on three premises provided by Keener. This the basis of these extratextual sources, is a non sequitur. that women’s public speech sometimes The central difficulty with Keener’s occasioned shame and, therefore, this is approach is that, very simply, he assumes most likely the point that Paul makes in that 1 Cor 14:34-35 says one thing but 1 Cor 14:35. means another, and that the text surely Since this is a cultural issue par- 2 cannot mean what complementarians ticular to Corinth, or to a culture of days argue it means. Having drawn this con- gone by, one should not assume that the clusion Keener sets out to explain exactly prohibition of speech in the assembly what kind of speech is prohibited by Paul, by women applies in a different cultural and to note the connection between this context today. As a result, the interpretive 3 kind of speech and “shame.” While the key for Keener is found outside the text logical problems with Keener’s argument of Scripture. are apparent, there remain further prob- lems in his essay. Contextual Considerations Keener does not properly consider The Hermeneutical Problem the context of 1 Cor 14:34-35. By this I Keener’s essay also suffers from a mean that (1) He does not give enough hermeneutical problem—a problem, I attention to the entirety of the 1 Cor- should note, that is not unique to the inthians letter; and (2) he does not give complementarian/egalitarian debate. The enough attention to the entirety of Paul’s problem involves confusion about the writings. Keener’s interpretation does role of extratextual sources in relation to include some consideration of the con- contextual and canonical considerations text of 1 Corinthians and other Pauline in biblical interpretation. The problem epistles. This occurs, however, after he es- is that Keener unduly emphasizes ex- tablishes the interpretive control related tratextual sources over biblical sources to the cause of “shame” in the cultural such that he overlooks crucial contextual context. Keener does not attempt to iden- and canonical clues that lead to a proper tify the cause of “shame” from the text of understanding of 1 Cor 14:34-35. 1 Corinthians or in the broader context of Paul’s writings, or even in a more Extratextual Considerations canonical sense. Rather he locates his Keener states, “The first task of the understanding of the concept “shame” in reader of Scripture is the exegetical one” various ancient documents (165ff.). Even (164). To this end Keener considers the when he (correctly) turns to the text of 24 SPRING 2005

1 Corinthians to identify “an additional of Genesis upon which Paul bases the problem,” he draws his understanding of prohibitions in 1 Tim 2:11-12? Were that problem from extratextual sources they unfamiliar with such a reading of (e.g., Plutarch) (168). the Torah? He commits a similar error with Later in the article, Keener, refer- respect to the identification of “law” in v. ring to Plutarch’s understanding of a 34. He suggests that “law” must refer to wife’s ability to learn, states, “Happily, the Jewish practice of training boys in the Paul’s concern for women’s private tutor- Torah, something not afforded to girls. ing does not cite such grounds” (171). For Keener this is further evidence that Yes, happily. But Keener does not actu- the problem in Corinth proceeds from ally identify the basis of Paul’s concern the shame associated with unlearned for the women or the church in Corinth. ladies asking questions in the public as- Because he does not adequately make ca- 4 sembly. nonical considerations, Keener misses the My point here is simple: In his connection between the reference to the quest to understand the context of the Torah in 1 Cor 14:34 and the prohibi- Scriptures, Keener spends less time con- tions of 1 Tim 2:11-12, which clearly are 6 sidering the biblical context and more rooted in the Law. When Keener does time appealing to extratextual sources. make a canonical consideration, he notes And when he does consider contextual that interpreters who see the connection issues, his logically suspect assumptions with the Pentateuch are not agreed upon lead him to draw mistaken conclusions where in the Law to make that connec- about the significance of contextual tion. He thinks that Gen 3:16 might be 5 matters. In so doing, Keener misses an option, which is a reference “to the important textual clues that could make verdict at the Fall.” He will not consider, this “difficult text” understandable. again due to his presuppositions, that there could be an appeal to a creation Canonical Considerations order that predates the Fall. Similar to the neglect of proper contextual considerations, Keener ne- Conclusion of glects proper canonical considerations Hermeneutical Problem in his essay. I believe that were Keener Keener is aware that he is suscep- to pay better attention to the canon of tible to criticism because of the manner Scripture he might discover help for the in which he allows extratextual consider- supposed interpretive conundrum he ations to function in relation to contex- identifies in 1 Cor 14:34-35. tual and canonical considerations: “Some For example, Keener dismisses readers today reject any interpretation of the notion that 1 Cor 14:34-35 might a passage that requires us to take that par- be connected to the prohibitions of 1 ticular situation into account” (164). He Tim 2:11-12 because “the Corinthians then suggests that “such readers are never could not simply flip in their Bible to 1 consistent,” since they do not “provide Timothy (which had not been written offerings for the Jerusalem church every yet) to see what Paul meant . . .” (163). Sunday” or “require head coverings or True enough that the Corinthians did holy kisses . . .” (164). His concern, rightly, not likely possess a copy of 1 Timothy. is a logical one: “We cannot simply cite But were they ignorant of the teachings the present passage and claim that it ap- 25 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

plies to all situations without begging the answer to the questions he sees raised in question” (164). 1 Cor 14:34-35. Again, though, Keener makes in- Instead, Keener suggests that correct assumptions. First, he assumes Paul’s appeal to the law allows rather that anyone who criticizes such extratex- than mandates the silencing of women tual dependence necessarily believes that at Corinth (170). In this instance, on everything in the Bible must apply to all Keener’s reading, God did not chal- situations. But there is no logical or bib- lenge this aspect of the “Greco-Roman lical warrant to assume this. Second, he patriarchalism of Paul’s day” (170). In wrongly assumes that one’s understand- Keener’s view we should not continue ing of “context” comes primarily from such prohibitions as the one found in 1 outside the text rather than within the Cor 14:34-35 “any more than we would textual context. His view, to me, seems maintain slavery today (e.g., Eph 6:5-9)” inconsistent with an historical evangeli- (170). Such a comparison (between com- 7 cal doctrine of Scripture. plementarianism and slavery) betrays, again, Keener’s failure to see a critical The Theological Problem point, one “absolutely central,” I would I wish to identify the central theo- suggest, “to a proper understanding of logical problem in Keener’s proposal, this passage.” That is, Paul’s prohibition in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is rooted in “the Law,” located in his misunderstanding about 8 the nature of male/female relationships not in “Greco-Roman patriachalism.” and the bearing such relationships have Likewise, Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim on order in the Christian assembly. 2:11-12 is rooted in the Law, as Paul Further, I believe clarification about this appeals to the anthropological creation order indicated in the opening chapters issue should help to provide a response 9 of Genesis. Slavery, however, is not to Keener’s view of the “two things” that 10 “are absolutely central to a proper under- rooted in the creation order. While standing of this passage” (164). the appearance of both the relationships Keener’s main theological problem between husband and wives and between is his failure to grasp properly the nature slaves and masters are similarly occasions of submission and the husband/wife for Christians to demonstrate the biblical relationship in general. He has not ad- principle of godly submission, the basis equately considered that there may be, for these relationships is dissimilar. The rooted in the creation order described in analogy Keener draws with slavery may Genesis 1-2, an anthropological order be a useful rhetorical device, but it is not that grounds the kinds of prohibition a compelling biblical or theological argu- found in 1 Cor 14:34-35 (and 1 Tim ment. 2:11-12, for that matter). As a result, Further, because Keener does not when Keener identifies the “two things” recognize the reality of anthropological that “are absolutely central to a proper order in male/female relationships, he understanding of this passage” (164-165), does not fully appreciate the manner he does not consider the historical, ortho- in which Paul’s prohibition in 1 Cor dox understanding of male/female role 14:34-35 promotes order in the church relationships and the order that obtains that is consistent with order in creation in the church and home from observ- and that appropriately reflects the nature ing these biblical teachings as a possible of the God who created and sustains 26 SPRING 2005

11 this orderly world. The reason that it is (for example, 1 Corinthians 11; Ephe- “shameful” for the women to speak in this sians 5). Moreover, that order functions context is because if the female prophets as a particular ecclesiological principle, judge the male prophets, they will bring seen in Paul’s instructions to Timothy (1 confusion about the creation order of Timothy ), where Paul reminds Timothy relationships in the congregation. of the “gospel order” (1 Tim 1:4) associ- Keener is careful to explain the way ated with the “stewardship (oikonomia) of in which his reading of 1 Cor 14:34-35 God that is by faith,” as well as in the call takes account of the prohibition of ask- for “order” in 1 Corinthians 14. Contrary ing with the purpose of learning. Yet “to to Keener, I see no logical reason why learn” (mathein) in v. 35 does not neces- Paul cannot permit women to pray and sarily indicate ignorance on the part of prophecy and then prohibit them from these women. That is, learning is not judging male prophets or teaching men always a sign that the one learning is ig- in the congregation. It is apparent that norant (e.g., Acts 23:27; Gal 3:2; Didache the former activities do not violate the 11-12). It may be that the “learning” done principle of “order” while the latter activi- by prophets when judging other prophets ties do. Scripture allows the former and is a form of examination by which the forbids the latter. prophets learn more precisely what a Keener assures us that 1 Cor 14:34- particular prophet is saying so as either 35 is difficult to interpret. But perhaps to affirm or reject a prophecy. If this is these verses are not as difficult as he sug- the case, then Paul is likely instructing gests. Understanding the prohibition in female prophets to raise questions about 1 Cor 14:34-35 as a means to maintain prophecies by males in the assembly with ecclesiological order that reflects the their husbands, who in turn can raise the creation order and the nature of God questions in the assembly, or with male himself makes contextual, canonical, and prophets, so as not to violate order in the theological sense. If one does not reject congregation. out of hand the historically orthodox position on male/female relationships in 13 Conclusion the home and church, understanding Paul’s intention in 1 Cor 14:34-35 the meaning of 1 Cor 14:34-35 may not is to offer a prohibition (women prophets be so difficult after all. should not judge male prophets), based on a properly contextual and canonical reading of Scripture, in order to preserve 1 He notes, e.g., complementarian scholars D. A. Car- order in God’s church so that the horta- son and James B. Hurley, as well as egalitarian scholar 12 tory and kerygmatic functions of the Walter Liefeld, as proponents of this view. 2 Keener’s term is “nonegalitarians,” an attempt to church will be properly realized. Unlike employ the term “complementarian” for use by egali- Keener, I take 1 Cor 14:34-35 to mean tarians, as seen in the subtitle of the book. 3 what it says. He refers here to the connection between the women’s speech and shame in 1 Cor 14:35. Paul’s reasoning is that there is a 4 Such arguments do raise an interesting question. If creation order than governs male/female one grants that central to Paul’s concern about the relationships in the home and congrega- maintenance of ecclesial order is the prohibition of the “unlearned” from asking questions, it is curious that, tion. That order functions as a general in a day when there were distinctions in the quality theological principle, seen in his instruc- of education even among males, Paul would single tions about husband/wife relationships out women to silence. Why would he not simply tell 27 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

the “unlearned” to remain silent? I grant that this a basis in the Law. It is true that this raises a question too would be an incidence of employing extratextual about the nature of the command to fathers in 6:4, evidence, but it occurs to me that if one relies upon but with reference to Keener’s comparison between extratextual evidence in the way Keener does, this is the prohibitions in 1 Cor 14:34-35 and slavery, the a legitimate question. point remains that the former is rooted explicitly in 5 On p. 168 Keener does consider the significance of the Law and the latter is not. other Pauline texts that refer to women’s roles. He 11 One should note the way in which the judgments of references Rom 16:1-2; 1 Cor 11:5; and Phil 4:2-3. prophets and the orderly conduct of worship in the Keener’s view is that Paul takes different approaches assembly are rooted in theology proper. Paul gives to the question of women’s roles “for strategic reasons.” these instructions and insists on their observance Because of his faulty presuppositions about women’s because “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace” roles and his reliance on extrabiblical sources, he does (1 Cor 14:33). The silence of women prophets with not consider that there may actually be a larger pattern reference to the judging of other prophets, which of scriptural teaching that, understood contextually surely included males, is given by Paul to maintain in the Pauline corpus, actually limits the activity of order and peace in the congregation, which is reflec- women in the assembly as a matter of fundamental tive of the nature of the God worshiped and served biblical principle. Thus, while he appears to make by the Corinthian congregation. That conducting contextual considerations, he in fact does not, since worship “decently and in order” includes the prohi- he allows the biblical texts to be controlled by sources bition of women judging male prophets is, then, not outside the canon of Scripture. at all surprising. 6 For example, the first explanation offered by Paul 12 The hortatory function involves edification of the for the prohibition from teaching and exercising body of Christ, and the kerygmatic function involves authority over men is that “Adam was formed first, communication of the gospel, including commu- then Eve.” Whatever one may think of Paul’s exegesis nication to the “outsiders” and “unfaithful” (1 Cor or reasoning, it is apparent that this is an appeal to 14:16, 23) that Paul assumes will be present in the Genesis 1-2. Corinthian assembly. 7 I fully recognize, as I have already stated, that this 13 By this I mean the typical complementarian posi- problem is not unique to Keener or egalitarians. This tion that recognizes male headship in the home and is, I believe, a critical hermeneutical mistake present in church with a complementary role played by wives much evangelical hermeneutics. My chief concern on toward husbands, and women toward men in the this point is to keep our hermeneutics consistent with congregation. our doctrine of Scripture, particularly pertaining to the doctrines of inspiration, sufficiency, and clarity. 8 I would not object, however, to the use of “biblical patriarchalism” to refer to this position. 9 For explanations of the function of the Law in the ordering of male/female relationships in 1 Timothy 2, see George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 142-43; Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Author- ity Over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11-15” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 188-91; Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timo- thy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed., Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 134-40. On the use of “law” in 1 Cor 14:34 and its relation to creation order see Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1153-55. 10 It is notable that the instruction to wives and hus- bands in Eph 5:22ff. is given with reference to Genesis 2:24 (see Eph 5:31), and the instruction to children in Eph 6:1-3 is given with reference to Exod 20:12. But the instructions to masters and slaves do not have such 28 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 29-37 “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29” (Ch 10) by Gordon D. Fee Robert Saucy Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology Talbot School of Theology Biola University La Mirada, California

The thesis of Gordon Fee’s dis- but ecclesiology” (174). After all, Fee cussion of Gal 3:26-29 which focuses says, “those involved in the struggle in on verse 28—“there is neither Jew nor Galatia are already ‘saved’” (176). Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, Fee asserts that the real issue of for you are all one in Christ Jesus”—may Galatians is “Gentile inclusion in the be briefly summarized as follows: (1) This people of God” (174). Can they “get in text represents the new order among on the promise to Abraham...without God’s people in the new creation “in also taking on Jewish identity” (174)? Christ” and as such disallows the signifi- The discussion of justification by faith cance of structures and roles in relation and freedom from the law in Gal 3:1-4:7 to the pairs mentioned; (2) thus “to give “focuses on the place of the Gentiles in continuing significance to a male-au- God’s new economy” (175). Similarly, thority viewpoint for men and women, the allegory of the bondwoman and free- whether at home or in the church, is to woman and their children in 4:21-31, reject the new creation in favor of the contrasting bondage under law and free- norms of a fallen world” (185). dom in Christ through the Sprit (4:21- As an introduction to the actual 31), “has to do with Gentile inclusion” discussion of this text, Fee spends con- (176, n. 10). siderable space attempting to show that In this reviewer’s opinion, this the central issue of the book of Gala- question of the nature of the Galatian tians is not the traditional question of problem is not central to the topic of “whether people are justified by faith or the chapter, which is the meaning and by works” (173), but rather the issue of significance of 3:28 for gender rela- “who constitute the people of God in the tions in Christ. But a few comments new creation” (174). In other words, the in response to Fee’s evidence for seeing “driving issue is not first of all soteriology it more an ecclesiological issue rather 29 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

than soteriological may be noted. As for become rightly related to God? Thus we the argument that those involved in the find numerous references in the letter to struggle are already saved, it is true that “gospel” (five times in 1:6-11 alone where the apostle’s opening address assumes his the Galatian issue is set forth), “justifica- readers to be professing believers (Gal tion,” “faith,” “grace,” and “works of the 1:3-4). But his theological opponents are law.” It was an ecclesiological problem, not so much these believers in general, but like the confrontation with Peter but rather a group of Jewish believers in Antioch, it was most importantly a who in Paul’s mind were attempting question of the nature of the gospel or to lead the church away from the truth soteriology. of the gospel—adversaries whom he is The author’s emphasis on the nature willing to consign to eternal damnation of the Galatian problem as ecclesiological which certainly raises questions about is difficult to understand in a discussion their salvation (Gal 1:9). focusing on the apostle’s statement, “there To lump together Paul’s confron- is neither . . . male nor female,” unless it tation with Peter at Antioch for “siding is to set these words more in the context with those who belonged to the circum- of practical church functioning rather than cision group”—an incident which the the soteriological focus of the equality of apostle cites against his Galatian oppo- man and woman in relation to God. But nents (Gal 2:11ff)—with the Corinthian Fee seems to diminish this goal when he problem of unchristian behavior at the notes that his use of “ecclesiology” refers Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34), conflicts to the “people of God as such, not church between those of “weak” and “strong” order and function” (174, n. 5). He also faith in relation to matters of eating (1 rightly includes the soteriological dimen- Cor 8:1-13), and the issue of eating meat sion in the issue when he says, “What is sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 10:1-22) as all at stake is ecclesiology: who constitute demonstrating an ecclesiological focus the people of God under the new covenant in Galatians is to fail to distinguish the of Christ and the Spirit, and on what underlying issue in each case. While all grounds are they constituted?” When he ecclesiological conflict exposes some of- answers the second question by saying, fense against the fullness of our salvation “on the grounds of their common trust in (e.g., our unity in Christ), not all directly Christ and reception of the Spirit” (176), attack the very nature of salvation in the he clearly involves soteriology. sufficiency of Christ. Peter’s action was He also correctly recognizes the of the latter sort, raising questions about soteriological element in his comment the very ground of justification—was it on the central text (3:28), “And in the “by works of the law” or “through faith end, if it appears that too much is being in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:16)? made of ecclesiology beyond the obvious To be sure the immediate is- soteriological dimension of our text, one sue among the Galatians was whether must remember that for Paul these can- Gentile believers must adhere to certain not be separated. To be saved meant to Jewish practices that had traditionally become a member of Christ’s body/fam- identified the Jews as God’s covenant ily/household” (185). If the ecclesiology people. But for the apostle, this question at this point does not involve church was directly related to the deeper ques- order and function, and the question, tion of the gospel—how does a sinner “Who is a member of Christ’s people?” 30 SPRING 2005

is answered, “Those saved,” then it is dif- in favor of the norms of a fallen world” ficult to see why the issue of salvation is (185). Fee recognizes that the male-fe- not equally, if not more, central in Paul’s male pair is not completely parallel to the letter to the Galatians. The manner in ethnic pair, Jew-Gentile, and the social which Fee brings ecclesiology and sote- standing pair, slave-freeman, in that the riology together in his understanding of gender distinction “belongs to the created the problem leaves this reviewer wonder- order.” Thus, he says, the “diverse yet es- ing whether his discussion of this issue sential ways of being human” involved in sheds any real light on the meaning of being male and female remain, only the Gal 3:28. old age “societal structure and roles” are Along with the issue of an eccle- negated (177, n. 11). siological focus, which is often in the (3) There is “a degree of ambiva- background through the remainder of lence toward the cultural structures and the chapter, Fee’s discussion includes a norms” in the teaching of Paul (181). number of other arguments which seem So as not to evoke cultural shame for significant in his arriving at an egalitarian these lesser things that are passing away conclusion. (there is already an unavoidable shame (1) Gal 3:28 represents the new in following Christ), the apostle does economy of the new creation which not outlaw the practicing of the roles is to be lived out now in the believing and structures of the world for believ- community. It negates the “value-based ers except when they are given religious distinctions” with regard to ethnicity, significance (181-182). Nevertheless, status, and gender which were used in in relation to man-woman relationship the old age for the constitution of value, in marriage, Paul’s instructions to the status, and significance (178-179). husband “run roughshod over the cul- (2) The pairs in the verse represent tural norms” (181) and “radicalizes this sociological categories involving struc- [structural] norm in a countercultural tures and roles that belong to the old age. way” which puts the significance attached Thus, these structures and roles including to it “into jeopardy” (183). that which relates to man and woman are (4) Paul’s teaching concerning an “not divinely ordained” (181). Although ordered relationship between man and believers must still live in old age socio- woman is parallel to his teaching re- logical contexts, the significance of these garding slavery (183-184). He does not sociological categories are abolished and abolish the system of slavery in his letter therefore irrelevant (179-180). “[I]n the to Philemon, but his urging to receive his community of faith the old rules cannot slave back as “better than a slave, as a dear be maintained; to do so would be to give brother,” does dismantle the significance them significance that in fact they no given to slavery and indirectly “heads longer have” (183). “[E]ven though our toward the dismantling of the system text does not explicitly mention roles and itself ” (183). Similarly, the husband and structures, its new creation theological wife are “first of all brother and sister in setting calls these into question in a most Christ” thus denying the significance profound way....[T]o give continuing of the “male authority” structure. Since significance to a male-authority viewpoint both slavery and “male-authority” are for men and women, whether at home or found in the two household codes of in the church, is to reject the new creation Ephesians and Colossians, one is logi- 31 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

cally compelled to “justify slavery as a roles of each pair suggests that they do God-ordained structure for the present not in themselves constitute diverse values age” if he advocates the continuation of of the persons involved. The Jew-Gen- male authority” (184, n. 25). tile distinction was established by God (5) The coming of the Spirit with himself as part of the outworking of his his gifts abolishes the significance of cul- historical plan of salvation. While it tural structures and roles in the church. did give some advantages to the Jews, its Therefore the apostle “was not overly purpose was manifestly not to constitute concerned about roles and structures as Jews as persons of higher personal value such” (184). Men and women are broth- than Gentiles. Scripture testifies that ers and sisters in God’s family where God is no respecter of persons and shows ministry is related to Spirit gifting—not no favoritism even with regard to Israel to gender (184). In the house churches and the Gentiles (Isa 43:10; Rom 2:11). where the leader of the household was Rather the purpose of setting Israel apart a woman (e.g., Lydia, Nympha), “we as God’s covenant people was func- may rightly assume” that she also gave tional—that they might serve the nations “some measure of leadership to her house as a channel of God’s blessing. Thus, if church,” contrary “to her (unprovable) the original God-instituted distinction subservient ‘role’ in the church” (184). did not constitute value differentiation The question is whether these between persons, the negation of this points which represent the substance of distinction with the coming of the new the argument for an egalitarian inter- covenant cannot be said to abolish a pretation of the statement, “There is . . . structure that entailed value differential neither male nor female,” truly represent between persons. the apostle’s meaning. The slave-freeman structure no One must certainly agree that doubt signified different personal value Gal 3:28 relates to the new creation “in and significance in the culture of the Christ.” It is also true that any distinc- surrounding world, even as it does today tions in these pairs that were then and where practiced. But, interestingly, again are now used to constitute different the apostle does not view this as inherent value, status, and significance of persons in the structure. His teachings related to are negated by the apostle’s teaching. A slaves refute any idea of a devaluation of major question arises, however, when we the slave’s person and significance. Slaves consider what it is in the pairs named that and their masters (if believers) are equally actually signifies a difference in the value, servants of the same Lord and will be status, and significance of the persons equally held accountable by him without involved. Are such differences related to partiality (cf. Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1). the personhood of individuals really inher- The idea of humans being property like ent in the structures and roles of the pairs impersonal forms of creation was never so that the negation of these differences part of God’s plan. Moreover, the scrip- entails the abolishment of the structures tural picture of human nature as well as and roles themselves—a primary premise other specific teachings such as Paul’s that Fee assumes in support of his egali- encouragement to be free if possible (1 tarian conclusion? Cor 7:21) argued against this practice A biblical examination of the dis- and led to its general abolishment. tinctions involved in the structures and But while Paul’s rejection of the 32 SPRING 2005

distinction between the slave and free- the apostle always grounds it in the ac- man in Gal 3:28 is part of the Bible’s pic- count of the original creation of man and ture of human personhood and therefore woman in Genesis 2—man is created may be argued to be part of Scripture’s first (1 Cor 11:8; 2 Tim 2:12-13) and teaching against the structure of slavery woman is created for the sake of man (1 itself, the abolishing of distinctions that Cor 11:9). constitute the value and significance of The claim that this apostolic teach- persons does not necessitate the abolish- ing is simply an accommodation to the ment of the structure of slavery. For as we patriarchy of the surrounding culture, have seen the structure of slavery does not as most egalitarians argue, is refuted in of itself constitute differences between that the apostle finds an analogy of the the slave and free person as far as their husband-wife order in the order of Christ personal value and significance in Christ. and the church—a permanent theologi- The fact that most interpreters see the cal reality. Moreover when he adds to New Testament’s instructions concerning his instructions for wives to be subject believing slaves and masters as applicable to their husbands the phrase “as is fitting to the order of employee-employer today in the Lord,” he clearly appears to apply would also indicate that Paul’s denial of this order to new covenant existence distinction in the slave-freeman pair does (Col 3:18). It is inconceivable that the not entail the abolishment or any order apostle would associate an order between between the person involved. man and woman with these theological It is even more difficult biblically to realities if such a structure necessarily support the idea that any ordered struc- entailed distinctions of personal value ture or diversity of roles in the male-fe- and significance. male pair constitutes different value and Further, it is impossible to under- significance of the persons. In the first stand how the apostle could juxtapose place, the same apostle teaches such an teachings that abolish orders because ordered structure on numerous occasions they (allegedly) constitute diverse values using a form of the Greek verb hypotassō of people with instructions for living in (“to order under”) four times in relation such orders. Colossians 3 provides a to the structure of the man-woman in case in point. Although the male-female the home (Eph 5:22 [implied from v. pair is not included in this passage, most 21], 24; Col 3:8; Titus 2:5), and twice in would agree that the teaching of Gal 3:28 their relation in the church (1 Cor 14:34; is repeated in Col 3:11 (the particular 1 Tim 2:11). In addition he twice refers pairs mentioned here being related to to the headship of man (Eph 5:23; 1 Cor the context of the Colossian readers): 11:3). Peter also adds to this teaching “there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised with his use of hypotassō (1 Pet 3:1, 5) and or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, other concepts that point to this same slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in structure (1 Pet 3:2, 6). In none of these all.” Just seven verses later, we find the is there any hint that these teachings are apostle telling wives, “be subject to your anything less than apostolic instructions husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” Aside for believers and therefore can hardly be from these teachings being in close prox- viewed as constituting different personal imity, they both seem to represent reali- values. In fact, when explanation is given ties of the same sphere—“in the Lord.” for the reality of the man-woman order, First Corinthians 12:13, which is again 33 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

essentially the teaching of our Galatian not say that they do not matter. text, and the references to a man-woman If the structures do not of them- order in 1 Cor 14:34 and 11:1-16, while selves entail diverse personal values, not as proximate as the Colossian texts, then there is no ground for seeing in the is another example that suggests that apostle’s teaching, as Fee does, “a de- the apostle does not see these teachings gree of ambivalence toward the cultural in conflict. structures and norms.” In fact, except Finally, Paul’s instruction to the for the order between man and woman believers in Corinth concerning those which Paul teaches as God’s creation who are circumcised or uncircumcised structures, he does not actually prescribe and slaves or free persons (1 Cor 7:17- the other “cultural structures and norms” 24), which along with 1 Cor 12:13; Col themselves. There is no instance, for ex- 3:10; and Gal 3:28 Fee calls “similar ample, where he teaches the institution moments,” clearly rejects the idea that of slavery. His teaching rather concerns these structures inherently entail differ- attitudes and actions for those in that ent personal value and significance. The institution, which, as we have suggested apostle’s words to those in these various are still applicable to our employee- situations is expressed in his words, “each employer structure. With regard to the one should retain the place in life that man-woman order the apostle portrays a the Lord assigned to him and to which radically different picture than that of the God has called him” (v. 17). As we noted cultural patriarchy of the world around previously, Paul does encourage the slave him as even Fee correctly acknowledges to choose freedom if that is possible. But (cf. point 3 of his argument above). that is not an issue of personal worth or Thus, if the prevalent cultural structures significance, for his general principle themselves are not part of the apostle’s to the slave is “don’t let it trouble you” teaching, it is difficult to see any real whether you are a slave or not. For a ambivalence. Christian slave is the “Lord’s freedman” If the social structures themselves and “Christ’s slave” (vv. 21-22). The final are not the focus of the denial of distinc- significance of the apostle’s key impera- tions within the pairs of Gal 3:28 (as ap- tives in the passage, namely, to remain pears to this reviewer to be a foundational in the situation in which God called assertion in Fee’s chapter), what is really them (vv. 17, 20) is summarized well negated in relation to these pairs? To be by Fee himself in his commentary on 1 sure, the momentous advance in salvation Corinthians. One’s situation in terms of history with the coming of Christ brought these structures, Fee writes, is “irrelevant what might be called a structural change to one’s relationship to God.” God’s call whereby the old covenant that separated (or salvation in Christ) “sanctifies that and thus distinguished the Jew as God’s situation as a place where one can truly covenant people from the Gentiles is now 1 live out God’s call in the present age.” replaced by a new covenant that unites If such is the import of Paul’s teaching both equally as God’s people. But it is here and it is applicable to the pairs in impossible to explain the removal of the Gal 3:28 including male-female, then distinctions in the slave-freeman and obviously these structures do not inher- male-female pairs by this same structural ently constitute diverse personal values. change. Nor, as we have discussed above, For if they did, surely the apostle would can the removal of distinctions between 34 SPRING 2005

these pairs be explained on the basis of God and thus constitute a unity as one the social structures themselves. spiritual family. The emphasis of the Fee rightly points to something oneness or the similarities of the pairs is more than the change brought about totally on what might be called spiritual with the inauguration of the new cov- or religious realities. In saying that the enant when he asks, “Why does Paul differences within the pairs are overcome add the second and third pair at all in an by the truth that they are one in Christ, argument that otherwise has to do only equally members of God’s family, and with Jew and Gentile?” (173). Rather equally sharing in the full inheritance of than seeing the answer with Fee in his salvation, these differences are identi- terms of denying any significance to the fied as those that precluded this oneness. functional social structures of these ad- The differences negated are thus those ditional pairs (for which there is no hint that kept those within the pairs from all in the context), the solution is found in being one and equal participants in all of the apostle’s stated explanation. There the salvation realities mentioned in the is no distinction, he says, “for you are all context. In short, they were spiritual and one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The lack of religious differences that refer to their difference within each pair is due to their relationship with God. Nothing at all is oneness. This is clearly not a oneness in said in verse 28 or its context about the everything. Slaves and free persons are differences within the functional struc- still different in many ways; so also man tures themselves—either concerning a and woman. The oneness in Christ that new oneness or equality related to them, has abolished the differences is a oneness or about their abolishment. in their common relation to God and his Paul’s use of “male and female” salvation which they all have through rather than “man and woman” in Gal being in Christ. 3:28—more than simply clarifying that That this is the meaning of the one- the reference is to more than husband ness is evident in the immediate context and wife, as Fee suggests (173)—gives of v. 28 (emphasis added throughout): further evidence that the focus of the oneness and equality of persons is in v. 26 – you are all sons of God relation to God and not on functional through faith in Christ differences. When discussing the func- v. 27 – all of you who were tional order between man and woman baptized into Christ have or husband and wife, the apostles always clothed yourselves with Christ used the Greek terms anēr (translated v. 28 – you are all one in Christ “man” or “husband” depending on the Jesus context) and gunē (“woman” or “wife”). v. 29 – if you belong to Christ, These same words are used for “man” then you are Abraham’s seed, and “woman” in the Greek translation of and heirs according to prom- the creation account in Genesis 2 which ise details the creation of woman in relation to man. But in the creation account of The individuals in the pairs of Genesis 1, which includes the position of verse 28 are one because they are all mankind in relation to God as his image “in Christ” through faith. As a result and in relation to the rest of creation as they share the same relationship with ruler, the language is “male” and “female” 35 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

(in the Greek translation, arsen and theus). motivated to seek adherents for them- Like the Greek words, the Hebrew terms selves that they might have something for “male” and “female” in Genesis 1 are to boast about and put themselves in a also distinct from those used for “man” superior position (Gal 4:17; 6:12-14). and “woman” in Genesis 2. The same superior-inferior personal value The apostle’s choice of the “male was present in the cultural attitudes as- and female” in Galatians 3, therefore, sociated with the pairs, slave-free and shows that he is thinking of the creation male-female. Most importantly this story of Genesis 1 where the equality of sinful differentiation of person values both sexes as human persons in relation involved personal distinctions in relation to God and the rest of creation is empha- to God, or what may be termed religious sized. He is not referring to the created distinctions. This is evident in the Jewish relationship between man and woman of temple of that time, where there was a Genesis 2 which he cites in other texts in Court of Women and a separate Court support of the man-woman order. of Israel (for men) with the Court of While the differences that were Women at a greater distance from the abolished in order to bring a new one- presence of God in the Holy of Holies. ness among the pairs were religious or Gentiles could not enter either court. spiritual and not functional or struc- Slaves were likewise considered on a tural, the fact that Paul can speak of the lower level personally and religiously in negation of something related to these that world. pairs reveals that these structures were The answer to Fee’s question as to somehow involved in these religious why Paul included the pairs of slave-free distinctions. One must agree, therefore, and male-female along with Jew-Gen- with Fee in seeing Gal 3:28 as negat- tile is, therefore, that in addition to the ing the “value-based distinctions” that change in the Jew-Gentile relationship were connected to ethnicity, status, and that came with the inauguration of the gender in the contemporary culture. The new covenant, there was something com- source of these distinctions negated in mon to all of the pairs that contradicted Christ, however, was not the structures the oneness and equality of each person themselves. Rather it was sin which took in relation to God—namely, the sin- occasion of these human differences to ful use of these structures to constitute make them the source of differences in different personal values. Although the value and significance as human persons. abolishing of the difference between Jew In short, sinful attitudes of those within and Gentile with the coming of Christ the structures led them to utilize their is clearly taught, there is nothing in the position in the structures as the source of entire letter or the immediate context their personal value and significance. that indicates that the negation of dis- Even the divinely instituted differ- tinctions related to the other social struc- ence between Jew and Gentile became, tures involved in the pairs. Furthermore, through sin, the ground for personal as we have seen above, the testimony of value and status, and something of this is Scripture is that these structures did not still present in the Galatian controversy. inherently entail distinctions of personal Paul sought the Galatians commendably value and significance so that it was nec- in order to betroth them to Christ (cf. 2 essary to abolish them in order to attain Cor 11:2), but he sees his opponents as the reality of oneness in Christ and thus 36 SPRING 2005

equal personal value and significance. of the people in the structures that lead Finally, Fee’s general claim that the to this conclusion. new creation and the coming of the Spirit Scripture reveals that some struc- leaves all roles and structures without tures and roles are, in fact, God-ordained meaning in themselves (184) ignores for the good of human life (e.g., the Paul’s clear references to leadership in original Jew-Gentile distinction, human the church including qualifications for government). This is especially true of “offices” (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Thess 5:12; the man-woman order which the same 1 Tim 5:17; 1 Tim 3:1-13). To suggest apostle Paul teaches as grounded in the that the patron of the household in which original creation. Differences between the church met would be leader of that people, including functions and roles, church is to ignore the same Pauline frequently become the basis for differ- teaching. The numerous references to an ent personal values because of sin. But “order” between man and woman that we the diversity created by God has positive saw above would also suggest that Paul intent. Diversity of spiritual gifts that did not see this order as having no sig- include different functions and roles, for nificance. To say that the eschatological example, are not only necessary for the significance of roles and structures has life of the body, but it is these very differ- been abolished is also to ignore the al- ences that unify the body (1 Cor 12:20). ready/not yet of eschatological realities. Similar created differences between man The presence and diversity of Spirit-given and woman, including functions and gifts within the church, which one could roles, are designed for true complemen- argue at least in the case of the gifts of tarity. While sin uses them to create leadership represent some order, may be divisive value-distinctions even among gone with the eschatological perfection, believers, God intends them to draw man but they still have present significance. and woman together in the recognition In conclusion, we would suggest of the value, significance, and necessity that the broad thesis argued in this chap- of the other for human wholeness. The ter is both quite right and quite wrong. solution to sin’s divisiveness is not the It is surely right in understanding that abolishing of the order, but seeking to live the apostle’s teaching in Gal 3:28 negates in accord with God’s instructions for our any “value-based distinction”—any dis- attitudes and actions within it. tinction that constitutes one person of more value and significance than another as a human being. But it is a serious 1 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians misinterpretation of this verse to see the (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 321. structures and roles represented in the pairs as inherently constituting such dif- ferent values of the persons within them, and, therefore, being abolished by this apostolic teaching. The overall teach- ing of Scripture demonstrates that the structures and roles in the pairs do not themselves make one a superior person and another an inferior person. It is rather the sinful ego-centered attitudes 37 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 38-42 “Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33” (Ch 11) by I. Howard Marshall George W. Knight, III Adjunct Professor of New Testament Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Taylors, South Carolina

I. Howard Marshall states his ob- parents and children appear to be com- jection to following these texts as they monsensical and Christian,” he brings are written in this modern world by his three charges against Paul that nullify title in which “mutual” governs not only this assumption long held by readers of “love” but also, and more importantly, the text. The first is that children are ad- the word “submission.” He argues that dressed as needing to obey their parents this “adjustment [of the given text] to “to a more advanced age than would be changed circumstances is required, as can natural for us” (188). He gives as his sub- be seen by a consideration of the material stantiation for this assertion the phrase “in about children and slaves.” This is such a the ancient world” and refers in footnote major turning point of his article that he 5 for detail to A. T. Lincoln’s Ephesians warns against “a concealed hermeneutical commentary.1 In the beginning of that trap for readers of this instruction. Since footnote Marshall cites P. T. O’Brien’s much of it can be seen as still appropri- Colossians commentary (and refers also ate in the modern world, it is tempting to his Ephesians commentary) where he to assume that whatever Paul says here “states that Paul is probably addressing should be applied without significant young children rather than those who modification to our situation” (187). For are already grown up” but asserts that “he Marshall only the “submission” which offers no evidence for this assumption” Paul asks of the wives cannot be followed (188). But O’Brien does offer evidence as stated, and that everything else in these when he cites Eph 6:4, which states that passages is applicable (cf. the first two full these children are to be brought “up paragraphs on 204). in the discipline and instruction of the His first appeal is to Paul’s teaching Lord.”2 These words imply that the chil- on “children and parents” (Col 3:20-21). dren are under age and are being brought After saying that “[t]he instructions to up by their parents. Furthermore, the 38 SPRING 2005

apostle has used the word “obey” rather Paul’s instruction for them both? Must than the word “honor” which is found Paul, or any other writer, say everything in his quotation of the fifth command- whenever he writes? Does not Paul write ment of the decalogue (Eph 6:2). Why in Titus 2:4 about young women being has he done so? The answer would seem taught “to love their husbands and chil- to lie in the fact that he has used a word dren?” Does he think that Paul does not more appropriate to children under age believe this? (“obey”), while the commandment has Marshall turns next to “slaves and used a word more appropriate for chil- masters” (Col 3:22-4:1) to substantiate dren of every age (“honor”). Likewise his case against living by the statements the admonition, “Fathers, do not provoke of Paul with reference to wives and hus- your children to anger” (Eph 6:3), is the bands. But here we find a subtle switch in foil of the “bringing up” command and his argument. Whereas Paul’s instruction finds its application most appropriately about children and parents is grounded in in the interaction the father has with his appeal to the moral law given in the his young children, as do especially the Old Testament, his words of instruction words of Col 3:21, “Fathers, do not about slaves and masters is not grounded provoke your children, lest they become in any external and abiding statement discouraged.” Paul is not writing what from God on this question of the exis- the ancient world believed or taught, but tence of slavery. One could say that this what Christians ought to do and be, and instruction is not given for an age when therefore the standard of that ancient slavery does not exist and therefore it in world is not necessarily his. no way affects the other two categories Second, Marshall argues that “the (i.e., wives/husbands, children/parents). father as patriarch had a much greater Furthermore, we need to be thankful authority over sons and daughters than that Paul gave to Christian slaves words is the case today” (188). Whether this is of hope and instruction in their dire true or not, or only true of the ancient situation, rather than remain completely world (for again Marshall gives no docu- silent, or urge them to rebel. But even mentation), it presents a problem. Is this more significantly, we need to note that statement which Marshall has given as the apostle in his letter to Philemon (vv. his understanding of what Paul meant 15-21) and in his words in 1 Cor 7:21c, once correct and now incorrect, or is it “[b]ut if you [as a slave] can gain your always wrong? And if neither is correct, freedom, avail yourself of the oppor- what then does that make of Paul’s teach- tunity,”3 has already stated God’s truth ing when he gave it? Was he teaching that a slave does not have to be a slave. the will of God, or echoing the will of The words of Col 3:22-4:1 can indeed the ancient world? Is the text actually be used in the modern world, but when erroneous when it came from Paul’s hand, used they must be used without any of the or is it so only if read to be giving more overtones of the slavery situation because authority than it actually did? that social entity, as we have pointed out, Third, he gives one final argument has no normative authority from God. against Paul’s statement: “Most signifi- Marshall is quite correct that “[a] modern cant, there is no mention here of love be- system of industrial relationships must tween parents and children” (188). Does draw its principles and practice from a Marshall really believe that this nullifies wider consideration of scriptural teach- 39 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

ing than simply these two (and other by God” (v. 1). Is this not true today? related) passages” (189). But any change (compare Marshall’s implied “no”).4 Is that may be noted about this passage does what the apostle asks of us Christians not thereby give any authority to change any less true? (Realizing that both then Paul’s instructions about wives and hus- and now the words of the Peter and the bands—which the apostle says are or- apostles, must also be taken into account, dered and ordained by God by means of “We must obey God rather than men” his actions at the creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:8; [Acts 5:28]).5 And therefore this appeal 14:33-34; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and which are to rulers does not give liberty to undo based upon our relationship as a model the explicit words of Paul addressed to of the relationship between the church wives (or husbands) in Colossians and and Christ (Eph 5:22-24) and which “is Ephesians. It is not acceptable to say fitting in the Lord” (Col 3:18). that changes of our day mean that we Marshall appeals also to “subjects may make changes to what is written in and rulers,” and says that it “presupposes . the Scriptures (cf. 190, “with changes in . . the existence of an imposed monarchi- structures and relationships, there natu- cal or aristocratic system of one kind or rally come changes in the kinds of behav- another” (189), and draws the conclusion ior required of Christians in them”). that “the key elements in Romans 13 and The items Marshall deals with elsewhere may be expressed differently in in the Ephesians passage on “mutual the different conditions that now exist, submission” and “headship” have been and that political thinking can go beyond addressed by those with whom he in- the parameters that appear to exist there” teracts in the footnotes (i.e., particularly (190). But does not this kind of conclu- Grudem and O’Brien). The space alloted sion fail to recognize that all the biblical for this article does not give us the option teachings are expressed in the concrete to go through the material on these issues settings of the times—cf. especially the again. But it would be a mistake not to Ten Commandments which our Lord call the reader’s attention to the excellent and the apostle Paul indicate are still our and nuanced article by Grudem.6 He commandments to be followed explicitly responds to the “mutual submission” ar- today, even if we need to recognize that gument of egalitarians that insisists that the ox and ass represent that which is throughout the Ephesians passage Paul is entailed in them? Thus, as indicated by calling on husbands and wives mutually the Lord and Paul, the Ten Command- to submit to one another, even though ments are a norm and standard for us the text does not speak of the husband Christians just as much as they were for submitting to his wife but does speak of the Israelites coming out of Egypt. We the wife submitting to the leadership of certainly cannot go beyond the param- her head, her husband. eters in them. What we need to say in conclu- Furthermore, the statement in Ro- sion is that Marshall assumes that the mans 13 is not as concrete as it might be, patriarchal structure of the first century but rather is stated in an ideological way is that which Paul is communicating, but that asserts God’s providential care and then at times he realizes that Paul is not control which is readily transferable to governed by this view but by a Christian us. It says “and those that exist [the gov- view that asks for love from a husband erning authorities] have been instituted (that, one may add, will take away the ef- 40 SPRING 2005

fect of the curse on his relation to his wife Paul’s and thereby to jettison anything [cf. Gen 3:16, “he shall rule over you”], in Paul that does not fit with our own and, one may also add, make room for the thinking. Marshall asserts, “Thus tak- submission from the wife that will not try ing the authority of Scripture seriously to overthrow that God-given oversight may require us to introduce some fresh [cf. p. 200]). Would that this truth would commands that go beyond the letter of control his exegesis and not his assump- Scripture as such” (201, n. 48). We need tion of the other perspective. to remember that just as Paul stated that This assumption can be seen in the Scriptures (the Old Testament) were several places in his exegesis and ap- “written for our instruction” (Rom 15:4), plication of the very words and phrases and therefore Peter could appeal to Sarah of Paul. Take his treatment of the call to as a model for the wives of the first cen- submission given to the wife. “The reader tury A.D. (“you are her children,” 1 Pet is left with no guidance as to what the 3:6), so this truth can be said also about Christian wife today [but also then!] the New Testament. Therefore, we today should actually do” (192). “Here we note may appeal to the apostles Peter and Paul the quite remarkable stress on wives be- for our instruction regarding husbands ing submissive ‘in everything’ to their and wives. It is not by adding some fresh, husbands which is found in the parallel or new, commands that go beyond the passage in Ephesians. . . . This would sug- letter of Scripture, but by asking for the gest that no area of a wife’s life [then, as grace of God to enable us to live by the well as now] is outside the jurisdiction of commands that he himself has given us her husband” (193). To what is Marshall that we will take seriously the authority objecting? Is it to the very words of Paul? of Scripture. It seems to be so, as we see him arguing from Peter’s words about their joint heir- ship of grace (1 Pet 3:7), and then saying 1 See A.T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC; Dallas: Word, that the wife’s submission “in everything” 1990), 398-403. is impossible for the husband to expect. 2 P. T. O’Brien, Colossians (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, Listen to his own words: “It is impos- 1982), 224; cf. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 440-41. sible to see how taking joint heirship 3 I concur with the ESV and other translations that this seriously can allow a husband to expect is the correct way to understand the Greek of this por- one-sided submission ‘in everything’ tion of the verse. Cf. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, from his wife” (203). Why did Paul not 1987), 315-18; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians see that and therefore not write these (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 307-14. words in his text? This view seems to be 4 Notice that Marshall takes the verb “be” or “exist” to corroborated by the introductory words apply only to the situation then, and not also now: “The biblical assumption that the ‘powers that be’ are to Marshall’s “Conclusion”: “Paul wrote ordained by God has not prevented Christians from as he did about marriage because in his defending democracy, including universal suffrage” world he did not know any other form (201). But is not democracy in a particular country now the “powers that be” in that place and thus has than the patriarchal. . . . The danger is to it not “been instituted by God” in that land? Or is think that this validates the setup for all Paul’s theological truth locked up and lost in the time time” (204). period in which he wrote and with reference only to that form of government then existing? The greater danger is to assume that 5 Marshall himself states that “the typical conserva- our twenty-first century approach gives tive evangelical method . . . is to derive ‘timeless’ principles” from a “cultural . . . setting”, and says us answers more relevant and truer than that “this approach must remain an essential part of 41 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

our hermeneutics” (200). 6 The article is much too long to even be summarized in this article, but its perusal will be quite beneficial to those that have read Marshall’s arguments on this subject. The article by Wayne Grudem is found in his work, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 188-200.

42 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 43-54 “Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11-15” (Ch 12) by Linda L. Belleville Andreas J. Köstenbereger Professor of New Testament and Greek Director of Ph.D. and Th.M. Studies Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

As many other aspects of the pas- 2:12 on firmer ground. sage, the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 has been It is in this context that Linda the subject of serious scholarly discus- Belleville’s chapter in Discovering Bibli- 1 sion in recent years. It has increasingly cal Equality on the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12, become clear that before one can proceed as well as her earlier contributions on to apply this crucial passage on women’s the subject, must be understood. The es- roles in the church, one must first deter- sential subtext of Belleville’s construal of mine what it means. In this quest for the the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 is her critique original, authorially-intended meaning of of the findings of the above-mentioned 1 Tim 2:12, the proper understanding of essay in Women in the Church. Apparently, the passage’s syntax has had a very impor- Belleville felt that in order to sustain her tant place, especially since consensus on egalitarian reading of 1 Tim 2:12, she the meaning of the rare word authentein must overturn the findings of this study. has proved elusive. As a result, she has lodged several points Most would agree that the essay on of critique that will be subjected to closer the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first edi- scrutiny in the pages below. tion of Women in the Church has advanced Yet since Belleville has not been the debate and provided the framework the only one to contribute to the debate for subsequent discussion. With its concerning the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 since identification of two basic patterns of the appearance of the original article in the usage of oude in both biblical and Women in the Church, it will be helpful not extrabiblical literature, and its proposal to stop at Belleville but to set the discus- that 1 Tim 2:12 ought correspondingly sion in an even larger context. This will to be rendered, “I do not permit a woman involve a survey of, and interaction with, to teach or have authority over a man,” the contributions made by other egalitar- the study put the interpretation of 1 Tim ian and non-egalitarian writers, including 43 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

scholars such as I. Howard Marshall, single coherent idea in Greek.”3 Blending Craig Keener, William Webb, Kevin instances of the noun authentēs and the Giles, Craig Blomberg, and others. verb authentein, Belleville maintains that This larger survey will make clear this term has a negative connotation in that the approval of the findings of the 1 Tim 2:12. essay on the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in Belleville also claims that the order the first edition of Women in the Church of the two infinitives,didaskein first, and has not been limited to those favoring then authentein, favors her interpretation: a complementarian approach to gender “If Paul had the exercise of authority in roles but extends also to virtually all mind, he would have put it first, followed egalitarian and feminist writers who by teaching as a specific example.”4 The interacted with this essay. Not that this upshot of Belleville’s discussion is that by itself establishes a complementarian the two infinitives in 1 Tim 2:12 are reading of 1 Tim 2:12 as valid, but it to be construed as a hendiadys, that is, certainly puts the interpretation of this forbidding women “to teach a man in a passage on a surer footing. dominating way” rather than enjoining This larger survey also reveals that them not to teach or exercise authority Belleville’s critique is out of step with over men even in a way that would oth- other egalitarian writers. This does not erwise be appropriate.5 by itself mean that her arguments are Belleville reiterates her views in her invalid (though this is what they are, as essay in Two Views on Women in Ministry. the critique below will seek to show). She alleges that the study of the syntax It does mean, however, that Belleville’s of 1 Tim 2:12 in the book Women in the arguments have failed to convince even Church “ignore[s] both the literary form 6 most of those who agree with her on the and the nature of Greek correlatives.” overall approach to the passage, which According to Belleville, (1) infinitives are 7 does lend further weight to the interpre- not verbs; (2) 1 Tim 2:12 has to do with 8 tive conclusions reached by the original ideas, not grammar; and (3) “neither/ study of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in nor” in 1 Tim 2:12 constitutes a “poetic 9 Women in the Church. device.” Belleville also contends that (4) 10 In the following essay we will first the two infinitives modify “a woman” look at Belleville’s work and then proceed and that (5) the question answered by 11 to survey and critique the contributions these infinitives is “What?” of others. Yet Belleville misconstrues the grammar and syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in Belleville’s Earlier Essays several ways, and her objection to the In her book Women Leaders in the study of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in Church, her essay in Two Views on Women Women in the Church entirely misses the in Ministry, and her contribution to mark. The forty-eight syntactical parallels Discovering Biblical Equality, Linda Bel- to 1 Tim 2:12 in extrabiblical literature leville has set forth her construal of the (as well as the one exact parallel in the syntax of 1 Tim 2:122 In Women Leaders NT, Acts 21:21) identified in this study in the Church, Belleville essentially re- all feature the construction “negated fi- states the earlier argument of Philip B. nite verb + infinitive + oude + infinitive” Payne that the two expressions didaskein and in every instance yield the pattern and authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 connote “a positive/positive or negative/negative. 44 SPRING 2005

This yields the conclusion that 1 Tim the two infinitives are found to convey 2:12 is to be rendered either: “I do not the verbal notion of actions to be per- permit a woman to teach [error] or to formed or not performed. This is borne usurp a man’s authority” or: “I do not out once again by the standard Greek permit a woman to teach or to have (or grammar by Daniel Wallace, which lists exercise) authority over a man,” the lat- 1 Tim 2:12 under “complementary,” one ter being preferred owing to the positive of the six subcategories of the adverbial 14 connotation of didaskein elsewhere in the use of infinitives. Pastorals. Hence the question of whether infinitives are verbs or nouns is moot Belleville’s Essay in Discover- in the present case, since regardless of how infinitives are classified, the study ing Biblical Equality In the 2004 essay collection Discov- of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in Women ering Biblical Equality, Linda Belleville’s in the Church focused on exact syntacti- “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 cal parallels, comparing infinitives with 12 Timothy 2:11-15” ups the ante by claim- infinitives. Thus Belleville’s major point ing that I consider “a hierarchical inter- of contention fails to convince. pretation of this passage [1 Tim 2:12] . To respond to the specific criticisms . . a litmus test for the label evangelical lodged by Belleville one at a time, (1) her and even a necessity for the salvation of argument that infinitives are not verbs is 15 unbelievers” (205). Belleville claims I hardly borne out by a look at the standard say (attributing a statement solely to me grammars. Wallace’s extensive treatment in a section that is signed by all three is representative. Under the overall rubric editors) “that a hierarchical view of men of “verb,” he treats infinitives as verbal and women is necessary for ‘a world es- nouns that exemplify some of the char- tranged from God’ to ‘believe that God acteristics of the verb and some of the 13 was in Christ reconciling the world to noun. Hence Belleville’s proposal that himself ’” (205, n. 1). infinitives are nouns, not verbs, is unduly In context, however, the statement dichotomistic and fails to do justice to the cited by Belleville does not refer to the verbal characteristics commonly under- interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 but to “one’s stood to reside in infinitives. view of male and female gender identi- Her proposals (2) that 1 Tim 2:12 ties and roles in the church” in general has to do with ideas, not grammar, and as of “the apprehension and application (3) that oude in 1 Tim 2:12 constitutes of his [God’s] good gift of manhood a “poetic device” are also unfounded in 16 and womanhood.” A renewal of this that clearly grammar is involved in the understanding of what it means to have present passage, and the genre is that of been created male and female in God’s epistle, not poetry. image in the beginning is presented as As to Belleville’s contention (4) that vital for our own deeper fulfillment and the two infinitives modify “a woman” and for our witness in the world. (5) that the question answered is “What?” Doubtless Belleville and other it must be noted that, to the contrary, the egalitarians would see their vision of gen- infinitives modify the main verb in verse der equality as vital for people’s deeper 12, epitrepō (“I permit”), and the question fulfillment and witness in the world; it is answered is, “To do what?” the answer be- unclear why the editors of the first edition ing “to teach or exercise authority.” Hence of this volume are denied the same hope 45 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

and conviction. In any case, contrary to 15:14, we read that “he pressed the city Belleville’s assertion, neither I nor the hard from land and sea, and permitted no other contributors to this volume believe one to leave or enter it.” Clearly, “leave” that what Belleville calls a “hierarchical” and “enter” are antonyms, but this is not view of men and women is necessary for the crucial point in the present analysis, a person to claim the label “evangelical” but rather the fact that both “leaving” and nor that such a view is “a necessity for the “entering” are viewed positively (rather salvation of unbelievers.” than one being viewed positively and In her discussion of the grammar the other being viewed negatively) by the of the present verse, Belleville states at perpetrator of a given action. This point the outset that “Andreas Köstenberger may be subtle, but an understanding of it claims that it is the correlative that forces is crucial for one to appreciate the argu- translators in this direction” (217, empha- ment being made in the present essay. sis added). It is unclear, however, what Beyond this, Belleville merely in the original essay suggests to Bel- repeats her earlier argument (noted leville a claim that the correlative “forces above) that infinitives are nouns, not translators” in a certain direction. I did verbs and disallows a progression from not claim that a certain understanding particular to general in 1 Tim 2:12. Once of the Greek coordinating conjunction again, however, it must be noted that the motivated translators in the past, but categorization of infinitives as verbs or rather that a certain understanding of the nouns is not the critical issue, since the Greek conjunction in 1 Tim 2:12 most present study identified a total of 49 exact properly conforms to the way in which syntactical parallels (negated finite verb Greek grammar actually functions. + infinitive +oude + infinitive) in the NT Belleville also misunderstands the and extrabiblical literature, so that infini- argument of the original essay when she tives are compared with infinitives, which says that it “argues that the Greek cor- clearly is the most accurate comparison relative pairs synonyms or parallel words possible. and not antonyms” (217). This is not, in I conclude that none of Belleville’s fact, the argument I make. Rather, my arguments overturns the syntactical pat- point is that there are two patterns of terns identified in the study of the syntax usage found with regard to oude in the of 1 Tim 2:12 in Women in the Church and NT and extrabiblical Greek literature: the implication of these patterns for the 17 “Two activities or concepts are viewed proper rendering of 1 Tim 2:12. positively in and of themselves, but their exercise is prohibited or their existence Other Recent Contributions is denied due to circumstances or condi- tions adduced in the context” (Pattern to the Study of the Syntax of 1) and “Two activities or concepts are 1 Timothy 2:12 viewed negatively, and consequently their The following review of other exercise is prohibited or their existence is recent contributions to the study of the denied or they are to be avoided” (Pattern syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 is significant in that 2). The issue here is not that of synonyms it reveals that Linda Belleville is virtually vs. antonyms but that of a particular type alone in her criticisms of the study of the of perception of a given activity by a syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first edition writer or speaker. For example, in 1 Macc of Women in the Church. As will be seen 46 SPRING 2005

below, the essay was exceedingly well subordinate (‘teach in a domineering received even by egalitarian or feminist way’).”21 interpreters. This demonstrates that The first substantive interaction Belleville’s alternative construal of the did not appear until the publication of syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 (which in any case I. Howard Marshall’s ICC commentary is largely a restatement of Payne’s view, on the Pastorals in 1999.22 Marshall in- already critiqued in Women in the Church) dicates his acceptance of the findings of and her strong criticism of the study of the present study by noting that it has “ar- the syntax in Women in the Church have gued convincingly on the basis of a wide failed to convince even those who share range of Gk. usage that the construction her egalitarian commitment. employed in this verse is one in which In the first few years subsequent the writer expresses the same attitude to the publication of the original essay (whether positive or negative) to both of 23 on the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in Women in the items joined together by oude.” the Church, responses were very positive, Marshall proceeds to suggest, both overseas and in North America. however, that matters are “not quite so 24 Peter O’Brien, in a review published in simple.” In response to the point that Australia, concurred with the findings Paul would have used the word heterodi- of this study,18 as did Helge Stadelmann daskalein had he wanted to convey a in an extensive review that appeared in negative connotation, Marshall avers that the German Jahrbuch für evangelikale doing so would have implied that while Theologie.19 Both reviewers accepted the women were not permitted to engage in results of the present study as valid. false teaching, men were allowed to do Even Alan Padgett, in a generally so. However, as Blomberg points out in a negative review in the egalitarian Pris- later piece, this objection does not carry cilla Papers, calls the present chapter “a force, because the prohibition still could convincing syntactical analysis of v. 12,” have been clearly framed to avoid this though he favors reading both infinitives conclusion.25 as conveying a negative connotation.20 Consequently, Marshall opts for a Padgett disagrees that didaskō is always negative sense of both words because of used positively in Paul, citing Titus 1:11, the reference to Eve in verse 14, which he 1 Tim 1:7 and 6:3, without, however, maintains would be pointless unless Paul mentioning that in the second and third here has “some particular false teaching 26 instances the word used is not didaskein, by some women” in mind. Marshall but heterodidaskalein. concedes that the text does not say that Another egalitarian, Craig Keener, Eve gave false teaching to Adam, but in a review that appeared in the Journal he claims such is nonetheless implied. of the Evangelical Theological Society, says Again, however, Blomberg notes that, that while (in his view) the principle is while women were clearly victimized by not clear in all instances cited in the pres- false teaching in Ephesus, “no passage ent study, “the pattern seems to hold in ever suggests that they were numbered general, and this is what matters most.” among the false teachers themselves.”27 Keener concurs that the contention of In a lengthy footnote, Marshall the present essay is “probably correct says the present study does not appre- that ‘have authority’ should be read as ciate the point that, if the second unit coordinate with ‘teach’ rather than as is seen pejoratively, then this will also 47 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

28 be the case with the first unit. To the Shortly after the publication contrary, this is one of the two patterns of Marshall’s commentary, William shown throughout the entire essay. Mounce, in his contribution to the WBC According to Marshall, Paul is using series, comes to rather different conclu- didaskein with the same connotation as sions than Marshall.32 Mounce draws heterodidaskalein, so the apostle is in fact extensively on the present syntactical telling women—but not men—not to analysis of 1 Tim 2:12 (quoting at length teach falsely. How would that not still from its critique of Payne) and integrates allow the same implication Marshall it into a full-orbed and coherent exegesis disavows, namely that women and men of the passage. While there is no need to are here treated inequitably? rehearse here all the details of his cogent As to the relationship between di- discussion of the verse, it should be noted daskein and authentein, Marshall presents that Mounce frequently adduces data two options: either these two terms are not adequately (or at all) considered or separate (citing Moo and the present acknowledged by Marshall: study as favoring this option) or the for- mer term represents a specific instance of • didaskein is almost always the latter (i.e., teaching is an act by which used in a positive sense in the authority is exercised). However, this Pastorals; does not quite capture matters accurately. • if Paul is prohibiting women The present analysis sees teaching as in- merely from teaching error, cluded in the exercise of authority, not as verse 13 seems irrelevant; entirely separate. There is a partial overlap • the fact that didaskein has between the two terms, though exercising no object strongly suggests authority is the broader concept. that the verse is a positive Finally, regarding the relation be- command; tween verses 11 and 12, Marshall claims • didaskein and authentein that the contrast is between learning in are best seen as distinct yet a submissive attitude and teaching in related concepts.33 a manner “which is heavy-handed and 29 abuses authority.” However, there is Mounce also points out that the no need to import the alleged negative two verbs are separated by five words in sense of didaskein into the way in which 1 Tim 2:12, which further speaks against the contrast between verses 11 and 12 is viewing them as forming a hendiadys, construed.30 where words are usually placed side by Overall, it appears that Marshall is side (citing BDF § 442 [16]).34 Following not prepared to follow his acknowledg- my identification of the pattern as from ment that the present study “argued con- specific to general, Mounce concludes vincingly” for a particular understanding that “Paul does not want women to be of the syntax of verse 12 to a conclusion in positions of authority in the church; that would require a non-egalitarian teaching is one way in which authority reading of the text. Hence he opts for is exercised in the church.”35 a negative sense of both “teaching” and Remarkably, even Kevin Giles, “exercising authority” on the basis of his who lodges a 38-page critique against construal of the background and reading the first edition of Women in the Church 31 of the context, particularly verse 14. (plus writing a 20-page surrejoinder), 48 SPRING 2005

finds himself in essential agreement the question of whether or not the two with the present syntactical analysis of 1 infinitives form a hendiadys. Blomberg Tim 2:12.36 However, by way of special contends that he has identified a “largely pleading, Giles maintains that “[p]eople, overlooked. . . informal pattern through- even apostles, break grammatical rules at out 1 Timothy of using pairs of partly times,” so that oude may function differ- synonymous words or expressions.”40 ently in the present passage than every- However, virtually all of these examples where else in attested contemporaneous are nouns. Blomberg concludes that the Greek literature.37 two terms are “closely related” (agreed) This is, of course, possible, but and “together help to define one single 41 highly unlikely. In my extensive research concept” (this may go a bit too far). in both biblical and extrabiblical Greek Blomberg finds it “overwhelmingly literature, I found no evidence of anyone likely” that in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul is refer- “breaking the rules” in his or her use of ring to “one specific kind of authoritative oude. It seems that even Giles himself teaching rather than two independent does not trust this kind of reasoning, activities.” However, this represents a for he later floats the possibility that false dichotomy, since no allowance is both didaskein and authentein are to be made for partially overlapping terms as understood negatively—in keeping with in a pattern from specific to general.42 the pattern of usage identified in the Pointing to related passages such as 1 present study.38 Tim 3:2; 5:17; and Titus 1:5–7, Blom- Craig Blomberg, in an appendix berg contends that the import of the two included in Two Views on Women in Min- verbs in 1 Tim 2:12 is one thing only: istry, renders the following assessment: women “must not occupy the office of elder/overseer.”43 Decisively supporting the To be sure, the parallels adduced by more positive sense of as- Blomberg suggest that 1 Tim 2:12 clearly suming appropriate authority means at least that—women ought not to is Andreas Köstenberger’s serve in the office that epitomizes teach- study of pairs of infinitives in ing and ruling authority.44 Yet it appears “neither . . . nor” constructions that Blomberg’s position, by reducing the both throughout the New issue solely to that of “no women elders/ Testament and in a wide- overseers,” may be unduly minimalistic. ranging swath of extrabiblical The principles adduced by the quota- Greek literature. Without tions of OT Scripture in 1 Tim 2:13–14 exception, these construc- would seem to suggest that 1 Tim 2:12 tions pair either two positive is grounded in more foundational reali- or two negative activities. So ties than a mere surface prohibition of if the “teaching” in view in women occupying a given office. For this 1 Timothy 2:12 is not false reason a more nuanced application of the teaching but proper Christian passage seems to be needed.45 instruction, then authentein While critical of the chapter on must be taken as appropriate hermeneutics in the first edition of authority as well.39 Women in the Church (though see Robert Yarbrough’s response in the second edi- Blomberg proceeds to discuss tion), another egalitarian scholar, Wil- 49 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

liam Webb, wrote that “I must commend associated, as the contrast with ‘quiet 51 the book for its exegesis in a number learning in submission’ makes clear.” of the other chapters, written by other Hence it is clear that Ng follows the 46 authors.” Later, he remarks, “In one conclusions reached in the present study of the finest exegetical treatments of 1 precisely and in their entirety. Timothy 2 available today, the authors of In a review published in the Review Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of of Biblical Literature in May 2004, Judith 1 Timothy 2:9–15 develop the text in its Hartenstein of Marburg University, Ger- lexical and grammatical aspects in much many, interacts with the reprint of my es- 47 the same way as I would be inclined.” say on 1 Tim 2:12 in the essay collection Elsewhere, Webb comments that “the Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of 52 exegesis by Schreiner, Baldwin, Kösten- Scholarship. She notes that berger, etc. is persuasive and will make 48 a lasting contribution.” One surmises Köstenberger shows through that this would include the syntactical a syntactical study that 1 analysis in the same volume. This is all Tim 2:12 forbids women to the more remarkable as William Webb teach and to have authority is an egalitarian. over men, not only to abuse In her critique of Elisabeth authority. . . . This teaching Schüssler Fiorenza’s reconstruction of of 1 Timothy is consistent Christian origins, Esther Ng notes that with the praxis in Pauline Fiorenza apparently takes both infinitives churches, as Köstenberger in 1 Tim 2:12 as having a neutral sense [in an essay on women in (meaning “teaching” and “having author- the Pauline mission] cannot ity” respectively), and as linked to oude find any evidence of contrary to mean two separable actions, though roles of women in the Pauline both related to men. This, she notes, puts epistles. In Köstenberger’s the matriarch of feminist hermeneutics opinion, this role of wom- in agreement with “the more historical en—where men bear ultimate 49 and conservative interpretation.” In the responsibility—should be same note, Ng also refers to the studies authoritative in the modern by Wilshire, Baldwin, and the present church. study. Later, Ng acknowledges that some While this reviewer has accurately “scholars with feminist inclinations” take summarized the contention of the present authentein in a negative sense (e.g., Payne, study, however, she proceeds to state, Fee) and then see the two infinitives as so closely related as to mean “teaching I certainly do not agree with 50 in a domineering way.” She continues, this result. My theological “However, since a negative connotation position is very different of didaskein is unlikely in this verse (see from that of Köstenberger. below), the neutral meaning for authen- Nevertheless, I often find his tein (to have authority over) seems to fit analysis of texts and exegeti- the oude construction better. . . . While the cal problems convincing and oude joins two separate activities, teaching inspiring, especially if he and exercising authority are still closely uses linguistic approaches. 50 SPRING 2005

. . . Likewise, I agree with interpreters, their choice of which ex- Köstenberger’s reading of 1 egetical arguments to embrace may be Tim 2. Köstenberger shows (and often seems to be) motivated by that the text demands a hi- their prior commitment to egalitarian- erarchy between men and ism. How refreshing it is when this is women and is meant as nor- openly acknowledged as in the case of 53 mative teaching. But with Hartenstein’s review. a different, far more critical Finally, Wayne Grudem, in his en- view of the Bible, I need not cyclopedic work Evangelical Feminism & accept it as God’s word. (It Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than helps that I do not regard 100 Disputed Questions, accurately sum- 1 Timothy as written by marizes the contribution of the original 54 Paul.) essay and concurs with its findings. Grudem properly interacts with Sarah In a remarkably honest and candid Sumner’s objection that I have made a fashion, therefore, this reviewer affirms “mistake” in saying that the word didaskō the present analysis of 1 Tim 2:12 and in 1 Tim 2:12 has a positive force, because acknowledges that she differs not for ex- the same word is used negatively in 1 55 egetical or linguistic reasons but because Tim 6:3 and Titus 1:11. In fact, in 1 she holds a “far more critical view of the Tim 6:3 it is not the same word, but the Bible.” Especially since she does not re- word heterodidaskalein (“to teach falsely”) gard 1 Timothy as having been written that is used, and in Titus 1:11 the context by Paul, she need not accept the teaching clearly indicates a negative connotation of 1 Timothy 2 as God’s word though it by the qualifier “teaching for shameful is “meant as normative teaching.” While gain what they ought not to teach.” No such space does not permit a full-fledged negative qualifier is found in 1 Tim 2:12, critique of her stance toward Scripture however. in general or 1 Timothy 2 in particular, Grudem also deals with I. Howard it seems clear that Hartenstein’s presup- Marshall’s objection to my taking the positions are problematic and unac- word didaskō in 1 Tim 2:12 in a posi- ceptable even for inerrantist evangelical tive sense, claiming that this “overlooks egalitarians. the fact that to say ‘But I do not permit This is not to say that every dis- women to give false teaching’ in this con- agreement with the present essay by text would imply ‘But I do allow men to egalitarians must necessarily stem from do so.’ ” Yet as Grudem rightly points out, an errantist stance toward Scripture, nor Marshall himself argues that authenteō is it to imply that no exegetical or linguis- has a negative nuance of “exercising auto- 56 tic arguments could be advanced within cratic power.” Hence the same objection an inerrantist framework. Nevertheless, he lodges against my essay would equally 57 this reviewer’s candor makes explicit what apply to his interpretation. may often be an unacknowledged factor in feminist or egalitarian interpretations Conclusion of 1 Tim 2:12, namely, presuppositions As the above survey of scholarly that in fact override the actual exegesis responses to the original essay on the of the passage. Whether or not this is syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 has shown, the acknowledged by egalitarian or feminist identification of two distinct syntactical 51 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

patterns has met with virtually unani- is conducted. mous acceptance, even among egalitarian and feminist interpreters, and has held 1 up very well to scholarly scrutiny. Only Most of this material is taken from my essay on the Keener hinted at and Belleville expressed syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the second edition of Women criticisms. Belleville alleged that, first, in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. didaskein and authentein are not verbs; Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming in that, second, the construction is a poetic August 2005). Used by permission. device following grammatical rules of its 2 See my review of Belleville’s work in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 2 (2001): own; and that, third, there are no parallels 344–46. for a pattern from specific to general. 3 Linda Belleville, Women Leaders in the Church: Three However, as mentioned, all three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 173 objections can be met. First, Greek (the same assertion is made on p. 175). See the cri- tique of Payne’s study in Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A grammars regularly and rightly treat Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in infinitives under the rubric of verbs. Sec- Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy ond, poetic device or not, Belleville has 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: not overturned the clear and consistent Baker, 1995), 82–84. syntactical patterns demonstrated in the 4 Belleville, Women Leaders, 175–76. It is unclear why present study, a pattern that has been ac- Belleville disallows the converse word order, especially in light of the occurrence of this pattern in Acts 21:21 cepted as valid even by virtually all other (cited in my original essay in Women in the Church, egalitarian scholars, including Marshall, 103, n. 15). 5 Keener, Padgett, Giles, and Webb. Third, Belleville, Women Leaders, 177. However, see the critique of Payne’s study in Köstenberger, “Complex Belleville does not consider Acts 21:21, Sentence Structure,” 82–84. 6 a genuine NT parallel, nor does she take Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” in Two Views on adequate note of the almost fifty extra- Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck and Craig L. biblical parallels adduced in the essay Blomberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 135–36, with reference to Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence on the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church, edition of Women in the Church. 81–103. But see the reviews by Andreas Köstenberger Marshall, finally, while accepting (cited in n. 2 above) and Thomas Schreiner inJournal for Bibical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 2 (2001): the overall validity of our syntacti- 24–30. In an apparent effort to marginalize the cal analysis, contends that didaskein is results of the study, Belleville calls it “traditionalist” negative (see also Padgett, Giles). This, (“Women in Ministry,” 136), implying that it does not represent serious research but rather constitutes however, is unlikely in light of the fact an effort to validate a traditional understanding of that all instances of this verb in the Pas- gender roles by means of the trappings of scholar- torals (to go no further) carry a positive ship. This is hardly accurate, however, since the essay involves extensive interaction with primary material connotation barring clear contextual and presents a pattern of the usage of oude that has qualification to the contrary. Marshall’s not previously been proposed. 7 Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 136. arguments have been effectively refuted 8 58 Ibid., 135. 9 by Mounce and Blomberg. For this Ibid. 10 reason, even after a decade of scrutiny, Ibid., 136. 11 Ibid. the results of the present study should 12 not only be upheld as valid, but should See also Henry Baldwin’s convincing critique of Belleville’s contention that nouns, rather than verbs, now be considered as an assured result should be studied in relation to the syntax of 1 Tim of biblical scholarship and hence ought 2:12 in his essay on authentein in the second edition of Women in the Church. to constitute the foundation upon which 13 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics a sound exegesis of the present passage (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 587–611, esp. 52 SPRING 2005

588. by Wayne Grudem discussed below. 14 Ibid., 598–99. 32 William Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; 15 With reference to the first edition of Women in the Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 120–30, esp. Church, 11–12. 124–26 and 128–30. 16 Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., Women 33 Ibid., 125, 129. in the Church, 11. 34 Ibid., 128. 17 This includes her argument that authentein is ren- 35 Ibid., 130. dered negatively throughout the history of transla- 36 Kevin Giles, “A Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contemporary tion and that only recent English translations have Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 Given in the rendered the term positively (pp. 209–10; though she Book, Women in the Church. Parts I and II,” EQ 72, no. notes that both Martin Luther and William Tyndale 2 (2000): 151–67 and EQ 72, no. 3 (2000): 195–215. translated the term positively as “des Mannes Herr See my response “Women in the Church: A Response sei” and “to have authoritie over a man” respectively). to Kevin Giles,” EQ 73 (2001): 205–24. However, even if this argument were true, this would 37 Giles, “Critique, Part I,” 153. prove the accuracy of such a rendering as little as the 38 Giles, “Critique, Part II,” 212. Majority Text proves the superiority of the Byzantine 39 Craig Blomberg, “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egali- NT text tradition, nor can this argument overturn the tarian,” 363. demonstrable rules of Greek grammar and syntax 40 Ibid. 41 with regard to 1 Tim 2:12. What is more, Belleville’s Ibid., 364. argument that the positive renderings of authentein 42 Ibid. in 1 Tim 2:12 in virtually all the major recent and 43 Ibid. current English translations is “partly to blame” for a 44 Though it is not entirely clear to me how this con- “hierarchical, noninclusive understanding of leader- clusion renders Blomberg “neither hierarchicalist nor ship” is open to debate as well. egalitarian,” as he suggests in the title of his essay. I 18 Peter T. O’Brien, Review of Women in the Church, see how he wants to avoid some of the negative con- Southern Cross Newspaper (September 1966), pub- notations associated with the term “hierarchicalist” lished by Anglican Media in Sydney, Australia. and how he is more open to women in leadership 19 Helge Stadelmann, Review of Women in the Church, than strict non-egalitarians, but clearly he shares with Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie 6 (1996): 421–25. the latter their central tenet and thus hardly occupies 20 Alan G. Padgett, “The Scholarship of Patriarchy a true middle position between those who believe (on 1 Timothy 2:8–15): A Response to Women in in women holding positions of ultimate authority the Church,” Priscilla Papers 11, no. 1 (Winter 1997): in the church and those who do not. Also, in his 24. title he erects somewhat of a strawman by positing 21 Craig S. Keener, Review of Women in the Church, “hierarchicalist” as one of the two polar opposites. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. This is accomplished only by stereotyping his fel- 3 (1998): 513–16. In a perceptive comment that low-complementarians. Is Blomberg implying that anticipates Craig Blomberg’s 2001 essay (see below), Thomas Schreiner or Ann Bowman, for example, the Keener suspects that this reading would represent a authors of the two non-egalitarian essays in the same challenge for “the more moderate complementarian volume, are “hierarchicalists”? It appears Blomberg is view that allows women to teach men provided they able to occupy the center in the debate only by push- are under male authority.” ing others with whom he shares their central tenet 22 I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edin- further to the right. burgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 454–60, esp. 458–60. 45 On issues of application, see Dorothy Patterson’s 23 Ibid., 458. chapter in the second edition of Women in the 24 Ibid. Church. 46 25 Such as, “I do not permit the women to continue William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Ex- their false teaching.” See Craig L. Blomberg, “Neither ploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Down- Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian,” in Two Views on ers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 35. It is beyond the Women in Ministry, 361, n. 137. scope of the present chapter to respond to Webb’s 26 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 458. categorization of this work as “patriarchal” (p. 282 et 27 Blomberg, “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian,” passim), other than to note that the label is tenden- 359, noting that this is conceded by the egalitarian tious, inflammatory, and inaccurate. 47 Walter Liefeld in “Response,” in Women, Authority and Ibid., 225. 48 the Bible, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Ibid., 244, n. 3. 49 InterVarsity, 1986), 220. Esther Yue L. Ng, Reconstructing Christian Origins? 28 Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 458, n. 157. The Feminist Theology of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: 29 Ibid., 460. An Evaluation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 285, n. 30 See Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure 170. 50 in 1 Timothy 2:12,” 91. Ibid., 287, n. 184. 31 51 See further the objection dealt with and answered Ibid. 53 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

52 Judith Hartenstein, Review of Andreas J. Kösten- berger, Studies in John and Gender, Review of Biblical Literature, posted at www.bookreviews.org (since the posted review contains no page numbers, no page numbers will be cited below). See Andreas J. Köstenberger, Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (Studies in Biblical Literature 38; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 261–82. The reprinted es- say is “Syntactical Background Studies to 1 Tim 2.12 in the New Testament and Extrabiblical Greek Literature,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 156–79 (a slightly modified version of the essay that appeared in the first edition of Women in the Church). 53 See Tom Schreiner’s comment on p. 107 in Women in the Church that “[t]hose scholars who embrace the feminist position, such as Paul Jewett, but argue that Paul was wrong or inconsistent in 1 Timothy 2, are exegetically more straightforward and intellectually more convincing than those who contend that Paul did not actually intend to restrict women teaching men in 1 Timothy 2.” 54 Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Ques- tions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 314–16. 55 Ibid., 315, n. 111, with reference to Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 253 n. 21, who in turn cites Padgett, “Schol- arship of Patriarchy,” 24. See also Tom Schreiner’s similar critique of Sumner in his essay in the second edition of Women in Church. 56 Ibid., 316, with reference to Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 458. See also Tom Schreiner’s critique of Marshall in his essay in the second edition of Women in the Church and Grudem’s interaction with the views of Blomberg and Belleville on the syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 on pp. 316–19 of his book. 57 For a detailed interaction with Marshall, see already the discussion above. 58 As discussed, Blomberg himself, while concurring with the overall thrust of the present study, takes its implications into a somewhat different direction than seems warranted.

54 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 55-59 “The Nature of Authority in the New Testament” (Ch 15) by Walter L. Liefeld Paige Patterson President Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Fort Worth, Texas

Walter Liefeld’s contribution to says, “Authority in the sense under con- the volume Discovering Biblical Equality sideration is a narrower term used to is customarily irenic and scholarly. His describe the right to command others mostly measured assessments are those and enforce obedience” (255-256). If of a reverent theologian doing his best the one with authority is Christ, this to read the Scriptures. That posture is definition has possibilities. Although he always commendable. Especially notable did not coerce obedience while on earth is Liefeld’s strong position regarding the nor does he do so in the present, there is nature of spiritual leaders viewed as con- coming a day when “every knee shall bow sidering themselves servants rather than and every tongue confess.” Certainly he asserting themselves as authorities or, in does have the right to command others. the language of Peter, as “being lords over However, this definition, if intended for God’s heritage.” Liefeld appropriately the church, seems inadequate in its appli- emphasizes the biblical perspective of cability. In keeping with the remainder servant posture. Much of the contempo- of Liefeld’s article, in which he stresses rary discussion regarding rights, privileg- the servant posture, it is better to argue es, authority, entitlements, etc. has missed that the authority of the apostles and of the biblical mark by light years. Hence, all subsequent lesser forms of authority one can only applaud the even-handed arise first as a result of the commission- emphasis of Liefeld regarding authority, ing of Christ. especially his emphasis that the only real In the second place, this authority is authority is God’s authority. sustained on the basis of a godly life and On the other hand, there are pe- complete obedience to the commands culiarities in Liefeld’s understanding that have been given by Christ. For which must be noted. One must begin example, the Great Commission (Matt with his definition of authority. Liefeld 28:16-20), has as its raison d’etre the fact 55 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

that it is the command of Christ to take that “in all these narratives the evidence the gospel to the ends of the earth and is uniform that authority applies not to to baptize and to teach those who re- preaching but to exorcism and healing spond affirmatively. The apostles clearly and only rarely hears arguments about received this authority from Christ and whether women should perform the mediated that authority to pastors and latter” (257). Certainly, Liefeld rightly deacons in the church of God, and, notes in the particular text he has chosen through them, to all of the people of that the authority involved has to do with God. All of these, in turn, are entrusted exorcism and healing, but this conclusion with certain authority resulting from the is to overlook the fact that the entire New authority that has been given to Christ. Testament is bound by the authority of Their ability, however, to sustain that Christ; and, hence, every syllable of it is mandate is what my father loved to call critically important for the disciple both “moral ascendancy.” The authority is not to honor and to obey. This authority sustained by force of arms or intellect but certainly extends to preaching. Again, by force of character and faithfulness to Liefeld says, “By contrast, it is note- Christ. Nevertheless, the authority that worthy that the gospels do not say that belongs preeminently to Christ has in Jesus’ teaching authority was transferred fact been passed on to his church through to the twelve” (258). While that may be the apostles, the ministers of the church, technically true in the sense that there is and to the people themselves. This is real no expressed statement precisely to that authority when processed in the moral effect, surely one cannot doubt that the posture previously indicated. apostles understood Christ’s authority to The authority extends not only to be transferred to them to some extent. evangelism but also to the “teaching of Otherwise, Paul’s claim that if people all things that I have commanded,” which are spiritual, they should acknowledge is the understanding of evangelicals in what he had written as the word of God every era. This authority embraced not (1 Cor 14:37) is an innocuous act of only the words of Christ but also the bluster void of any particular authority. words of the apostles in Holy Scripture. Clearly that is not what Paul intended. Hence, when in 1 Tim 2:12 women When Liefeld argues that the are not allowed to be in authority over word for “obey” in Heb 13:17, “Obey men or in a teaching position over men, your leaders and submit to them,” is the this authority comes not only with the Greek word paithō, which means “persua- authority from the apostle Paul but also sion,” he is precisely correct. Of course, from Christ. The church or individual if one is persuaded, then he is to submit, leaders within the church are not left which is a stronger term. Not only is he with the right to abrogate the command- to submit, but those to whom he is to ment of the Lord. Paul speaks specifi- submit are spoken of as “those who have cally of his own writing, “If anyone thinks the rule over you,” an employment of himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let the Greek verb hegeomai, a stronger term him acknowledge that the things which than Liefeld seems to suggest. Clearly, I write to you are the commandments of this word does not enjoin the power and the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). authority of a king, but it does depict a As a consequence, it is not easy to very decisive leader who in fact carries see how Liefeld arrives at the conclusion serious spiritual authority. 56 SPRING 2005

Regrettable is Liefeld’s representa- an authority to which we are to submit tion of independent churches, and espe- (Romans 13). So also is the relationship cially “Baptist” churches, as places where between wife and husband. Nevertheless, the senior pastor, especially if he is the in the family relationship itself the wife founding pastor, exercises ultimate—per- is told to submit to the husband, and the haps absolute—authority. While there husband is instructed to love his wife as are certainly some cases of this injustice sacrificially as Christ loved the church to which Liefeld might appropriately and gave himself for it (Eph 5:22-33). appeal, this injustice is hardly the rule Submission is a word that implies a since Baptist churches, and for that mat- voluntary recognition of an authority—in ter many independent churches, practice this case established by the Lord himself. either congregational rule or elder rule, Equally disappointing is Liefeld’s inad- neither of which lend themselves to vertent misrepresentation of those in the “absolute authority.” On the other hand, complementarian camp as having made those Baptist and independent churches the assumption that 1 Tim 2:12 forbids who recognize the importance of the women “from ever having any authority” pastoral position do believe that as long (263). Actually, I know of no comple- as a senior pastor is not theologically mentarian who has ever held that view heretical, morally reprobate, or spiritually in light of the fact that women are, for bankrupt, the church should essentially example, specifically instructed to teach follow his leadership, even while he labors other women and children (Titus 2:3-5). as a servant to the church he serves. This By the same token, there are limits placed misrepresentation of congregationalism upon the public teaching role. on the part of Liefeld understandably Again, Liefeld insists, raises the question of Liefeld’s actual knowledge of modern congregational What is often overlooked church life. in these discussions is that More disturbing still is Liefeld’s women traditionally were dependence upon 1 Cor 7:4 in an attempt not welcome as teachers in to prove that the authority of husband either Greek or Jewish soci- and wife in marriage is equal. While the ety. To restrict the ministry particular subject under consideration is of teaching to men would not the most intimate relationship of hu- have been surprising to the man life, a relationship in which there world of the New Testament. is certainly equality does not necessarily If missionaries, like Paul, transfer into the kind of universal equal- were to be all things to all ity for which Liefeld seems to argue. people to win them to Christ Certainly, ontological equality of hus- (1 Cor 9:22), public procla- band and wife are established by virtue mations of Christian teach- of the fact that they are both human, ings would ideally be done made in the image of God, and equally by men (265). accountable to God. However, just as the same is true for each individual on To begin, this is a defacto attempt the face of the earth, nevertheless, civil to argue that some of what the New magistrates, while ontologically equal to Testament says was subject to cultural the rest of us, are positionally vested with conditioning. While this position is 57 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

certainly one that many have argued, I very authority of the triune God. It is find it troublesome, not only because thoroughly consistent with other instruc- it is unconvincing but also because the tions given throughout the Bible such interpreter is left with the right to jet- as 1 Cor 11:1-12 where divine order in tison just about anything that does not human relationships is plainly stated and appeal to his own aesthetic sensibilities. where even the distinction between onto- More serious is the fact that his position logical equality and positional submission is simply not accurate. For example, there is implied. Furthermore, the entire lack is an explicit command in Titus for godly of precedent in Scripture for providing women to teach younger women the instances of pastoral or diaconal service ways of faith. If this is so alien to Greek from women or of women having a pub- or Jewish society, why is this command lic teaching role in synagogue or church not greeted with total astonishment? By has still not been shown to be in error. the same token, the attempt to marshal In conclusion, Liefeld is correct to insist arguments for public teaching ministry that from the minister’s perspective, the from the private instruction in the way pastor should always perform his du- of the Lord given by Aquilla and Priscilla ties from the vantage point of a servant. to Apollos is an old argument that always By the same token, the pastor realizes fails. I know of no complementarian any- that much of what he does is done with where who does not believe that men can the authority of Christ and the biblical learn and do learn much from women. witness of the apostles. This position is In the privacy of a situation that Aquilla stronger than the one Liefeld proposes and Priscilla had with Apollos, it was in his article. certainly appropriate for them to discuss In sum, Walter Liefeld sounds an theological matters. Apollos, apparently appeal for servant leadership that is criti- younger in faith than either of the other cal for the church in a day of the assertion two, was able to sharpen his own under- of rights, authority, power, and entitle- standings through those discussions. No ment. Nevertheless, he also invokes es- violation of the public teaching limitation sentially the same well known egalitar- is discovered herein. ian arguments. These views amount to Finally, Liefeld resorts to anecdotal (1) ignoring precedent in Scripture; (2) argument when he says, “One pastor marshalling revisionist and complicated recently asserted that to oppose him was interpretations of numerous passages in to oppose God” (269). Certainly, there is Scripture, which otherwise appear to be no question but that some men abuse the straightforward; and (3) largely ignoring authority God has given them through 2,000 years of Christian interpretation, such statements and actions, but anec- guided instead by a “hermeneutics of dotal evidence could be marshaled on interest,” which allows a social concern all sides of this argument, even a notable to determine how one approaches the one that occurred in the initial printing of text of Scripture. Discovering Biblical Equality. But, such is Perhaps complementarians may hardly the point. On the other hand, 1 be forgiven for having higher regard Tim 2:12 is a rather straightforward and for more liberal theologians who, while easily comprehended mandate from the agreeing with egalitarian conclusions, apostle Paul. The verse carries with it by do so without misrepresenting or rein- virtue of the inspiration of the Bible the terpreting Scripture. The position that 58 SPRING 2005

Paul opposes women in pastoral roles but in so doing is simply mistaken seems to me to be a position of greater integrity. But, of course, the battle for feminism is already won in liberalism and liberal churches. Evangelical churches, on the other hand, remain as the last outposts of a concerted effort to read the Bible and follow its teachings regardless of conventional wisdom and social agenda. Therefore, I suppose, egalitarianism must attempt the impossible.

59 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 60-62 “Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry” (Ch 16) by Stanley J. Grenz Justin Taylor Director of Theology Executive Editor Desiring God Ministries Minneapolis, Minnesota

Before offering any form of sum- as the instantiation of a general bibli- mary or critique of this chapter, I would cal principle of male priesthood. Their first like to express my deepest condo- argument is roughly as follows: clergy lences to the family of constitute a priesthood; women could at the event of his unexpected, untimely not be priests; therefore women cannot death. Our prayer for his family and be clergy. friends is that the God of all comfort The error, according to Grenz, rests would minister to and fellowship with in the first premise. The new covenant them as they mourn the loss of a son, counterpart to old covenant priesthood a brother, a father, a grandfather, and a is not found in the pastorate, but rather friend. May we all learn to number our in the priesthood of all believers. Fur- days as we ponder afresh that our earthly thermore, the doctrine of the priesthood lives are but a vapor and that we will soon of all believers entails that “the status of meet our Maker. priest is exactly what forms the basic qualification for all church officers” (276). Summary The pastoral role is to be filled by people The main goal of Grenz’s essay— gifted for the pastorate serving among which is adapted from his larger work, the gifted people of God. Since priest- Women in the Church, co-authored with hood is the basic qualification for the 1 Denise Muir Kjesbo —is to refute those pastorate and the charismata are distrib- who argue that the priestly character of uted without distinction, both men and the pastoral office entails that only men women are thereby qualified and gifted may exercise pastoral leadership. Some to serve as elders and pastors. complementarians—mainly from within the liturgical traditions—argue that the pastoral office (or function) is to be seen 60 SPRING 2005

Response that Scripture specifically weighs in on In some ways it is difficult to the contested conclusion: “He [an elder] know how to respond to Grenz’s essay, must not be a recent convert, or he may for I—along with most complementar- become puffed up with conceit and fall 2 ians —join Grenz in rejecting the faulty into the condemnation of the devil” (1 premise that the pastoral office (or func- Tim 3:6). tion) is an instantiation of the priesthood. I would suggest that an analo- The priesthood was a shadow pointing gous—though by no means identical— forward to the substance, Jesus Christ, situation occurs in the essay by Grenz. our great High Priest. All believers are The arguments sound fine, until you united in our Priest, and via union with realize that Paul has addressed this very him we comprise a “royal priesthood” (2 issue and prohibited the very conclusion Pet 2:5, 9). that Grenz seeks to draw! Just as 1 Tim Does this mean that Grenz’s egali- 3:6 (“he must not be a recent convert”) tarian ecclesiology is thereby established defeats the idea that recent converts may or vindicated? By no means. To see why, it be elders, so 1 Tim 2:12 (“I do not permit may be helpful to imagine an unlikely, but a woman to teach or to exercise author- perhaps illuminating, fictional dispute. ity over a man”) defeats the idea that Let us imagine that two theologians are women may be elders. Grenz believes having a debate over the qualifications that the combination of indiscriminate for eldership. Their disagreement is not gifting by the Spirit combined with the about gender, but about whether or not fact that the priesthood of believers is the one must be a mature believer in order to fulfillment of the old-covenant priest- be an elder. The theologian who believes hood yields the conclusion that women that only mature believers are qualified to may be elders. But Paul explicitly forbids be elders offers the following argument: that very conclusion. In order for Grenz’s elders constitute a priesthood; new con- argument to work, it must depend on verts could not be priests; therefore new his revisionist interpretation of 1 Tim converts cannot be clergy. 2:12 and other crucial texts that have The theologian who believers that a more direct bearing upon whether or all believers are qualified to be elders not women are scripturally permitted to points out that it is the church, not the be elders. pastorate, that fulfills the priesthood. But Grenz has a response to this Furthermore, God distributes the gifts argument. He suggests that comple- indiscriminately, and it is the combi- mentarians, in their attempt to skirt nation of priesthood and gifting—not the ecclesiastic implications of the New maturity in our walk with the Lord—that Testament teaching on spiritual gifts, qualifies one for the office (or function) have driven a sharp wedge between the of elder. charismata and the ordained office. In The theologian who believes that other words, they erect a false dichotomy new believers may be elders has effec- between the gifting of the Spirit and the tively refuted the peculiar argument of exercise of the pastoral role. the mature-elders-only theologian, but But this does not change my re- this does not mean that he has established sponse in the least. How do we decide his own position, nor that he has refuted the relationship between role and gift? his opponent’s conclusion. The reason is By seeing if the New Testament writers 61 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

drew any distinctions between them. Paul women functioned as prophets in both the OT and the NT, but they do not serve as priests in the OT clearly taught that God indiscriminately nor as elders in the NT” (my emphasis). Pointing to a distributes the gifts within the church, pattern as “suggestive”—with connotations of possible and he also clearly teaches that only implications and hints—is different from endorsing qualified males are to be elders. Therefore, the argument, however cautiously. he implicitly drew a distinction between the two, and he did not draw the con- clusion that Grenz draws, namely, that women may serve as elders. I would suggest that Grenz’s essay is successful only in defeating the method of argumentation employed by those who build their case for complementarianism upon the assumption that the pastor- ate is an instantiation of an all-male priesthood. Those who reject such an assumption will be unfazed by this essay. It neither defeats complementarianism nor advances egalitarianism, for the is- sue cannot be decided based upon the priestly—or non-priestly—character of the pastorate. The issue will be decided based upon whether or not Paul specifi- cally forbade women from entering into that office or exercising that function. I join the other contributors to this issue in maintaining that careful, contextual, grammatical-historical exegesis vindi- cates the complementarian understand- ing that Paul appeals to the creation order to establish his conviction that only men may serve as elder-pastors in the church.

1 Stanley J. Grenz with Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 173-98. 2 Grenz writes that Thomas Schreiner, in his review of Women in the Church (TrinJ 17 [Spring 1996]: 121) “only cautiously endorses the argument from the all-male priesthood in the Old Testament” (274). But this is incorrect. Schreiner agreed with Grenz that his “dismissal of this argument [that only males can truly represent Christ to the congregation] is on target” and that one cannot “justify the exclusion of women from ordination merely by observing that women could not be priests in the OT.” Schreiner went on to say—and this is the only sentence Grenz quotes—that “there is a suggestive pattern in that 62 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 63-71 “God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor” (Ch. 17) by Judy L. Brown

H. Wayne House Professor of Law, Trinity Law School Trinity International University, Santa Ana, California Distinguished Professor, Biblical Studies and Apologetics Faith Seminary, Tacoma, Washington

Thou hast been faithful to my “King” are human characteristics ascribed highest need: to God but should not be carried too far And I, thy debtor, ever, for self-serving reasons (287-88). evermore, She then seeks to affirm the use Shall never feel the grateful of the masculine gender, third personal burden sore. singular pronoun in modern translations Yet most I thank thee, not for for the person of God. Declaring that any deed, even though God is not male she does But for the sense thy living recognize that English, Greek, Hebrew, self did breed and most ancient and modern languages That Fatherhood is at the do not have a third person personal 1 world’s great core. pronoun which does not express gender. Consequently, she continues, the third Judy Brown, in her chapter in Dis- person pronoun he refers to a male person covering Biblical Equality, entitled “God, or to a generic individual without refer- 2 Gender and Biblical Metaphor,” seeks to ence to gender (288). She concludes, by dissuade her readers from viewing God alluding to Carl F. H. Henry, that the in masculine terms by explaining that only pronoun that may be used of God such terms are merely ways in which we is a masculine, but the point is not “to speak of God in figurative language, but convey that God has a sexual or gendered a language which does not reflect who he nature but to emphasize God’s personal really is (287). She reminds us that God nature. When he is used for God in is spirit and that the Bible presents God Scripture, it is used in its general sense through personification and anthropo- as a generic personal pronoun, not in morphism which reflects only a likeness its gender-specific sense as a masculine to God (287-88). Titles like “Father” and pronoun” (288). 63 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Though Brown is correct that Hen- cal). While some pagan and ry believes any sexual overtones should be Eastern religions spiritualize avoided in speaking of the biblical teach- sexuality—casting masculin- ing regarding God, he also recognizes ity and femininity as spiritual that masculine terminology is inherent in polar forces defining and per- speaking of God in a way that feminine vading all of reality—such terminology is not. Henry says, notions are utterly alien to biblical teaching. According But the Bible’s predominant to Scripture, God created use of masculine imagery and sexuality when he created metaphors is not to be hur- physical life on earth. The riedly dismissed as a matter being and nature of God does of indifference. Even as the not partake of or participate biblical writers do not indis- in sexuality in any way (289- criminately employ anthro- 90). pomorphisms with reference to God, so the gender-uses God is not a sexual being, either of the inspired writers in- male or female—something that was volve ontologically important considered to be true in ancient Near conceptual distinctions, even Eastern religion. He even speaks specifi- though they do not convey cally against such a view in Num 23:19, sexual connotations. The bib- where the text has God saying he is not a lical linguistic precedents are man [ish], and in Deut 4:15-16, in which to be considered normative he warns against creating a graven image for Christian theology.3 of himself in “the likeness of male and female.” But though he is not a male, the Brown rightly understands that “formless” deity (Deut 4:15) has chosen there is a temptation to speak of God to reveal himself largely in masculine as if he were a male sexual being, if one ways. The inherent equation of human depicts him as a physical being. She is masculinity with human male sexuality, right to emphasize that attempts to do however, would require that references so in ancient Israel would have been a to God in masculine terms is merely a form of idolatry, prohibited by God on “picture” of God for the purpose of hu- the first table of the Law. She is also man understanding (290). There would correct to argue that a male (and thus be, then, no metaphysical or telic reasons sexual) deity led to the need for female why the personal nature of God is spo- (sexual) deities, and that God is, rather, ken of in masculine terms, or why God spirit. Brown, however, goes on to say is Father and Son from all eternity and something much more: spoken of repeatedly in strong masculine names, or why he is pictured perform- Moreover, the prohibition ing seemingly masculine tasks (though against ascribing sexual char- granted there are a few instances when acteristics to God cannot be seemingly feminine acts are performed circumvented by positing by God). that God’s masculinity is Brown appears to understand that metaphysical (and not physi- masculine language for God comes 64 SPRING 2005

from a cultural, patriarchal context of It is not that the proph- the Middle-East rather than something ets were slaves to their pa- intrinsic in God (290). After making this triarchal culture, as some point, she contends, feminists hold. And it is not that the prophets could not The man was the central imagine their deities. It is figure in society, and the hus- rather that the prophets . . . band-father was the authority would not use such language, figure as the family’s primary because they knew and had protector and provider. It is ample evidence from the reli- understandable, then, that gions surrounding them that masculine terms would be female language for the deity the common choice for de- results in a basic distortion of scribing a God who is the the nature of God and of his 4 greater protector, provider relation to his creation. and authority figure. . . . In ancient times, all these traits It is clear that Brown does not were more characteristic of believe that God named himself, and men than of women and were then sought to order a world in which summed up in the traditional the man acted, from Adam onwards, as father’s role (290). the protector, provider, and authority, and that the woman, from Eve onwards, was The perspective that the Father- to be the nurturer and in submission to hood of God originates from the cultural a father and a husband, as a reflection attempt to explain God falls short of of him. the evidence. The culture of the ancient Roland M. Frye, who accepts the Near East did not create the reality of use of inclusive language for people, who God is by the name assigned to nonetheless believes that such language him in Scripture. God revealed himself, for God is unacceptable: his identity, and then began to transform the culture. God is certainly not a male, Language for God is not but he has chosen to reveal himself to equivalent to the kinds of us primarily in masculine terms which naming we use in ordinary reflect his personal identity and how speech. . . . [W]e recognize he will work with his creation, in rule, that ordinary names for crea- in provision, in protection, and the like. tures are subject to human Moreover, divine Fatherhood and Son- custom, choice, and change. ship are not temporal in nature, though According to biblical religion, our weak imitations are; God is the on the other hand, only God eternal Father and the eternal Son. One can name God. Distinctive comes only to God through the language Christian experiences and by which he has chosen to reveal himself beliefs are expressed through to us and not by our creating his reality distinctive language about and who we might want him to be. God, and the changes in Elizabeth Achtemeier insightfully that language proposed by comments, feminist theologians do not 65 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

merely add a few unfamiliar The Apostle’s Creed, for ex- words for God . . . but in fact ample, does not begin with introduce beliefs about God the divine essence but with that differ radically from the Person of the Father: those inherent in Christian Credo in Deum, Patrem om- faith, understanding and nipotentem. The Nicene Creed 5 Scripture. likewise does not make God first ousia but hypotasis, not In line with the foregoing is the essentia, but persona: “I be- important distinction regarding human lieve in one God, the Father seeking to understand the inscrutable, almighty.” hidden God who is only known through In identifying God first as his self-revelation. Certainly people, the Father and then affirm- apart from the clear revelation of Scrip- ing that the Son is begot- ture, have made God (in their minds) to ten of the Father and that be any number of distorted images (Rom the Holy Spirit proceeds 1:20-23), but only God has a right to from the Father—in holding, name himself. It behooves us to simply that is, that the pater is the accept God’s self-revelation. arche—then we necessarily When Brown deals with the Fa- affirm patriarchy in the Holy ther representation of God in the New Trinity. Indeed, inasmuch as Testament she believes (rightly) that all the Christian dispensa- the terminology is relational rather than tion is Trinitarian, there is a sexual. But then Brown concludes that necessary inference that “all God is Father because of Jesus’ relation- of the Christian revelation is 6 ship with his Father in heaven, and that patriarchal.” Jesus has made this intimate relationship available to believers who are thus able Reardon also argues that “Patristic to call God “Father.” The fatherhood of literature asserts that in God the name God, then, “primarily expresses our fam- Father is not titular but real. It is a ‘proper’ ily relationship with God through Christ. name, pertaining to God as God and not It is not intended to signify that God’s simply to God’s relationship to us. Before essential nature is masculine, or more he is our Father outside the Trinity, he is masculine than feminine, or gendered in the Son’s Father within the Trinity (see 7 any sense” (290). John 20:17).” I believe that she fails to under- Brown goes on to explain why she stand the issue of essence and person in believes that God is expressed in mas- her discussion of the persons of God. culine terms in the Bible. It is similar If, in fact, the divine essence (ousia) to how he is likened to animals, or even precedes the person (hypostasia) God inanimate objects. This is merely a way is an impersonal being. Patrick Henry for humans to understand God, an an- Reardon rejects such a perspective as thropomorphism. She writes, contrary to the ancient creedal formulas of the church: Even as Scripture likens God to various animals (Deut 32:10-12; Hos 5:14; 11:10; 66 SPRING 2005

13:7)—certainly not because persons and not female per- God is an animal but because sons during biblical times some animals have charac- (291). teristics that help humanity better understood God—so Brown does not distinguish per- too Scripture depicts God in sonal qualities of the eternal Father (and terms of roles or attributes the eternal Son) from figures of speech associated with men. This used in temporal settings as God is is done not because God is manifested to humans. Donald Bloesch male or essentially masculine speaks to this question of the intrinsic in nature but because men nature of Father and Son in contrast to in ancient cultures possessed mere metaphors when God is compared characteristics, including to a rock, or is expressed in feminine authority, that help portray terms at times. To see God as Father and God’s relationship to his Son because of human fathers and sons, people. In a similar man- is to turn biblical theology regarding God ner, Scripture likens God to on its head. Fatherhood is patterned after 8 various inanimate objects or God’s Fatherhood, not vice versa. entities (e.g., rock, fortress, According to Bloesch, the names shield, gate, bread, light), not of God are analogical; they reveal God’s because God is inanimate identity. They speak to identity, the be- but because such things have ing of God, unlike Creator or Rock, an identity or a quality that which are metaphors that seek to explain helps humanity grasp certain his actions. Bloesch, citing Elizabeth qualities that are true of God Achtemeier, says to speak of God as (290-91). Mother is to prepare for pantheism which would lead us to regard creation as She concludes from her manner coming out of the womb or being of God of argument, consequently, and quite and that this would then be an extension 9 naturally, that authority is not really of God. specifically invested in man: Brown also speaks of feminine im- agery in the Bible and puts it on par with Furthermore, the fact that masculine imagery of God. For example, Scripture frequently portrays God is said to be like a God’s authority (along with a number of his other attri- mother eagle—stirring up butes) by means of masculine the nest, hovering over the titles and word pictures does young and carrying the young not mean that authority is in flight (Deut 32:11). The necessarily or exclusively a language is identical to that masculine attribute. It simply of Gen 1:2, in which “hov- means that Scripture reveals ering” is ascribed to God’s God as a personal being who Spirit. Moses described God has the power to command as being the One who both obedience—an attribute that fathered and birthed Israel typically characterized male (Deut 32:18; “formed” in- 67 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

stead of “birthed” in KJV between our words and the transcendent 11 ignores the wording of the reality to which they point.” That is, Hebrew text “writhe in pain” God is certainly different from humans, and the fact that this word- particularly (for our discussion) male ing was used in reference to humans, but also, in some sense, males childbirth) (291). share their masculinity with God who is perfectly masculine (not male) after She goes through the remainder whom masculine beings are an imperfect of Scripture pointing out ways in which replica. Reardon sounds an alarm about God is spoken of as involved in feminine classifying Father, unlike Mother or activities. Even believers being “born motherly characteristics, as a metaphor: again” is seen as feminine imagery for God and his activity (292). [I]t appears to me that clas- Brown concludes with her discus- sifying the Father’s proper sion on feminine imagery: name as only metaphorical is not, in practice at least, to ex- Of course, none of these plain it; it is to explain it away. analogies means that God It makes God’s revelation is female, any more than the nothing more than a restate- masculine imagery means ment of our ignorance of him, that God is male. The Spirit so that we are back where we God is neither male nor started, as though there had female and is certainly not never been a divine revelation 12 bisexual. Again, it must be in Jesus Christ. emphasized, the Spirit God transcends all characteristics The biblical text does not present of physical creatures, includ- God the Father as acquiring his name ing sexuality. . . . Defining from human usage but human father be- the Creator according to the ing patterned after the Father of heaven. creation lowers the Creator to As F. F. Bruce says, the level of the creation and produces serious theological Eph. 3:14f. probably means errors (292-93). that God is ‘the Father [pater] from whom every father- Several of Brown’s underlying as- hood [patria] in heaven and sumptions about God need to be clari- on earth is named’, ‘every fied. She is certainly right that we must patria is so named after the view God analogously, even regarding pater’ (G. Schrenk, patria, his being viewed in masculine terms. TDNT V, 1017). God is the Analogy shares components of univocal archetypal Father, all other 10 and equivocal language, so that when fatherhood is a more or less God is spoken of as Father, this means in imperfect copy of his perfect fact that he is a Father, though far more fatherhood. . . . According to than human fathers. Analogical language, Clem. of Alex., in what seems then, is neither equivocal nor univocal, to be a reference to this pas- but rather “there is a partial resemblance sage, . . . ‘every lineage [or fa- 68 SPRING 2005

therhood] runs back to God physical organs, human persons are able 13 the maker.’ (Strom. 6, 7). to receive light and sound, but such functions are deeper than the physical In the words of W. G. M. Martin, reception as human brains register and “The Fatherhood of God is not a mere record phenomena of the physical world. metaphor drawn from human relation- The immaterial mind is what really thinks ships. The very opposite is the case. . . . and works through the brain. Thus, God The archetype of all fatherhood is seen in has an ability to see, hear, and think the God-head, and all other fatherhoods apart from the physical organs, and the 14 are derived from Him.” manner of our physical interaction with Moreover, the use of Father, in our immaterial self is inferior to him. contrast to other terms such as Rock or Consequently, like God, we think, feel, King, is an essential part of his person- see, hear, and so on, but our doing so is hood rather than merely a description of only a weak likeness to his ability without how he acts or even relates to us. He is a physical body. the eternal Father, even as the Son is the We have been created in the image eternal Son. In the relationship of Father of God to function as he functions, but he and Son, the Son, as is characteristic of is far more than us in all of his attributes. a son, is subordinate to the authority of This is also true regarding sexuality. God the Father; and the Father, in some sense, has a self-revealed masculinity in Father is the eternal producer, begetter, of the and Son, but this is not maleness, for eternal Son. maleness deals with human sexuality (the Another problem with Brown’s Hebrew words for male and female are view is the idea that our language of the physical sexual organs). Even so, our God is an attempt for us to understand sexuality does bear a weak reflection to him rather than this language being the infinite creativity of God as a spirit his self-expression. That is, rather than being. speaking of anthropomorphic and an- thropopathic language, we should speak In the Bible it is said that of theomorphic and theopathic language. God is like a mother in some We are made in the image of God, not respects, but that he is a fa- he in ours. ther. It may be that maternal Brown writes, “God is said to see, similes [sic] (or more of them) but a Spirit God doesn’t have actual eyes; could be introduced into li- God is said to hear, but a Spirit God turgical language. However, doesn’t have ears” (288). Certainly, as a the introduction of feminine spirit, God does not have the physical names, titles, pronouns, or organs of eyes and ears, nor for that mat- metaphors would be to speak ter the same intellectual nor emotional of God in terms other than characteristics and limitations of humans. those in which he has re- But Brown has made an important error. vealed himself in Scripture. She has assumed that seeing and hearing It may well be, that masculine may only be done by physical organs, and imagery for God reflects an that, even in humans, seeing and hearing important truth about the reside only in the physical and not in nature of his relationship the immaterial part of humans. Through with us, and therefore one 69 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

that we are not at liberty to I would like to complete this brief inter- 15 change. action by considering her understanding of Jesus as a man. She argues that Jesus I would commend Brown for her was born as man mainly because of the section on feminist extremes, in which culture into which he was born: she speaks of possible extremes that femi- nists might advocate in this issue. She In order to be a representative advocates staying with biblical terminol- human being (albeit without ogy of God rather than subtracting or sin), Jesus had to be either adding to it. Inasmuch as she is speaking male or female. The choice of metaphors about God, I would concur, could not have been based whether God is spoken of in masculine, on God’s gender, for God is feminine, or neuter (inanimate) ways. neither male nor female. Nor This, however, does not deal with the could the choice have been personal sense of God being eternally, based on God’s preference, not culturally, a Father and a Son. for God does not favor men In her next section on traditional- over women. What, then, ist extremes, I would agree, in part, with determined Jesus’ gender? what she points out. Certainly we should The culture into which Jesus not think of God as a physically sexual was born is the most likely being, though he is creative, and our sexu- possibility (295). ality is but a weak representation of that creativity. Her conclusion, though—that In other words, Jesus would not even if God were masculine, this would have been accepted as a teacher or Mes- in no way mean that spiritual leadership siah as a woman. He had to be a man, should be limited to the male gender—is though she says that this was probably a non sequitur in light of the abundance not theologically required, only culturally of Scripture that teaches differently. (295). She does believe that it is im- Even the apostle Paul relies heavily on portant to use the titles God the Father the priority of Adam in his creation as a and God the Son, rather than God the basis of male headship or authority in the Mother and God the Daughter, because home and church. I agree with much that the Bible uses them. But her reasons she argues, but the effort to move from for God to be a Father and a Son are God not being a male to the view that unfounded. She bases it on the physical males are not entrusted with leadership birth of the Son, his acceptance in the roles in the home and church is weakly culture as a male child, and the likeli- argued. She fails adequately to make the hood that “male dominance” needed to connection on why this is so. be overturned by a male (296). Brown continues her chapter on Male and female in Genesis are the matter of the image of God in male sexual, and man and woman are sexual and female (296-299), a point with which distinctions. Brown seems to reject, or I do not generally disagree, though I be- to be uninformed of, the eternal nature lieve she has failed to deal squarely and of the Father and the Son taught in the carefully with the import of maleness Scriptures and in the teachings of the and femaleness in Genesis 1 and 2, and Christian church from early times. Paul’s teaching regarding these chapters. She seems to be incapable of ac- 70 SPRING 2005

cepting a view that masculinity and (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997),106-07. 7 Ibid., 108. fatherhood reflect—even if imperfect- 8 Donald Bloesch, “Does God Have a Name?” an un- ly—the personal nature of God. Man, published address delivered 25 September 1990. then, is made after the personal nature 9 Ibid. 10 Aristotle defines and distinguishes equivocal and of God, not God made after the personal univocal in the following manner: nature of men. Scripture presents Adam Things are said to be named ‘equivocally’ created directly by God first, then Eve is when, though they have a common name, the defi- created indirectly by God from Adam. nition corresponding with the name differs for each. Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay She is other than man, and is in fact claim to the name ‘animal’; yet these are equivocally also in the image of God as the man, so named, for, though they have a common name, but Paul distinguishes her likeness from the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. For should any one define in what sense that shared by men, and that she reflects each is an animal, his definition in the one case will the likeness of the man (1 Corinthians be appropriate to that case only . . . 11). It is on the basis of the priority of On the other hand, things are said to be named ‘univocally’ which have both the name and the man in creation, the nature of this the definition answering to the name in common. A relationship in the imago Dei, and the man and an ox are both ‘animal’, and these are univo- sin of the woman that Paul constructs cally so named, inasmuch as not only the name, but also the definition, is the same in both cases: for if his theology of leadership in the church a man should state in what sense each is an animal, and in the home. the statement in the one case would be identical with that in the other (Aristotle, Categories, §1, trans. E. M. Edghill, Great Books of the Western World, The Works of Aristotle, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins 1 George MacDonald in the dedication to his father [Chicago: William Benton, 1952], 1:5). in his first book in 1857. 11 Donald Bloesch, The Battle for the Trinity: The -De 2 Editor’s Note: Brown’s article appears in the original bate over Inclusive God-Language (Ann Arbor, MI: edition of the book. After it was released, it became Servant, 1985), 14. known that Brown had been involved in an adulter- 12 Reardon, “Father, Glorify Thy Name!” 109. ous lesbian affair and found guilty on felony accounts 13 F. F. Bruce, “Name,” in New International Dictionary of breaking and entering with the intent to commit of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, (Grand murder and malicious wounding. InterVarsity Press Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 2:655. officials announced that they did not learn about the 14 W. G. M. Martin, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in incident until April of 2005 and that they would The New Bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson (Grand cease publication of the book. IVP plans to re-release Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 1023. See also Reardon, Discovering Biblical Equality without the article by “Father, Glorify Thy Name!” 110. Brown. See the full story at http://www.gender-news. 15 A report from the Doctrine Commission of the com/ article.php?id=71. Nevertheless, since Brown’s Anglical Diocese of Sydney, “Language, Gender article was pulled because of her actions and not and God,” Year Book of the Diocese of Sydney, because of the content of her article (with which the 1992 Synod Summary: Language, Gender and God, editors of the book presumably agreed), it was decided 450-51. that JBMW would respond to the article. 3 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (6 vols.; Waco, TX.: Word, 1976-1983; repr.; Wheaton: Crossway, 1999), 5:160. 4 Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Female Language for God: Should the Church Adopt It?” in The Hermeneutical Quest: Essays in Honor of James Luther Mays on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Donald G. Miller (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1986), 109. 5 Roland M. Frye, Language for God and Feminist Language: Problems and Principles, Reports from the Center 3 (Princeton: Center of Theological Inquiry, 1988), 1. 6 Patrick Henry Reardon, “Father, Glorify Thy Name!” in Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catho- lics and Orthodox Dialogue, ed. James S. Cutsinger 71 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 72-80 “‘Equal in Being, Unequal in Role’: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination” (Ch 18) by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Dorothy Patterson Professor of Women’s Studies Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Fort Worth, Texas

What is the Battle? Groothuis must be an extraordi- Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, not nary woman. According to her on-line only the author of the chapter under biography, with a B.S. degree in psychol- review but also one of the editors of ogy, she has been lecturing at Denver and Discovering Biblical Equality, sets the Fuller seminaries, while through personal tone for her chapter as well as for the study equipping herself to do research volume as a whole in an interview in and write in biblical studies and theology, which she brushed aside “exegeting a disciplines other than those she formally few controversial biblical proof texts . . studied. In the author information of . or proof words” and indicated that she her publications she is identified as “a wanted to show that “biblical equality free-lance writer and editor.” Perhaps her 1 makes sense from every angle.” In so do- decision to change venue from her formal ing she immediately puts herself at odds study to her avocation of writing on top- with a large segment of the evangelical ics in theology and philosophy accounts world who would see careful exegesis of for the lack of biblical and theological pertinent texts, together with linguistic references in her allusions to passages of analysis of the words within those texts, Scripture and her lack of direct interac- as the bedrock of any search for under- tion with those whom she considers her standing what God is saying in setting his opponents. guidelines and establishing his mandate Interestingly, Groothuis not only for women and men in how they should defines the terms of her own position, live, serve, and interact with one another. but she also redefines the terms describ- The issue remains that divine guidelines ing the positions she is critiquing. Such and paradigms must be primary and casuistry may give one a bit of an edge foremost and the molding factors for when trying to defeat an opponent and individual choices. her position, but it does smack of a less 72 SPRING 2005

than scholarly approach to academic given. Perhaps the best starting point for debate. The pressure is then upon the evaluation would be to identify as much reader not only to read what Groothuis as possible the presuppositions of Groot- has written but also to be careful to read huis in contrast to my own. Groothuis is the words of those whose positions she seemingly comfortable being identified seems to be maligning and systematically as an egalitarian since she is on the Board redefining in the process. For example, in of Reference for Christians for Biblical footnote 25 of her chapter, she alludes to Equality and would, I presume, agree Piper and Grudem as arguing that “just with their statement of faith. Writings as the animals were to be submissive to from her own pen in no way seem to the man, so was the woman.” Here are move her out of the mainstream of egali- the words Piper and Grudem actually tarian ideology. On the other hand, I was penned, on the founding board for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood The context makes it very and remain on its Board until now. My unlikely that helper should be evaluation is from the standpoint of a read on the analogy of God’s complementarian. When Groothuis help, because in Genesis redefines complementarity ex nihilo 2:19-20 Adam is caused to without regard to the carefully prepared seek his “helper” first among documents of the CBMW founders, even the animals. But the animals the most casual reader must admit that will not do, because they are this revisionism makes any meaningful not “fit for him.” So God interaction almost impossible. makes woman “from man.” Groothuis and I embrace a com- Now there is a being who is pletely different presupposition on “fit for him,” sharing his hu- anthropology or the divine plan for man nature, equal to him in manhood and womanhood. But, even Godlike personhood. She is more important is the presupposition infinitely different from an from which we are working respectively animal, and God highlights with reference to Scripture. I am assum- her value to man by showing ing that Groothuis, as many egalitarians, how no animal can fill her would embrace inerrancy. I certainly 2 role. hold that every syllable of God’s Word is true. Here we find a real dilemma in Misrepresenting the positions of that logical consistency demands that one’s opponent is a less than convincing any belief system does not violate the method of gaining ascendancy or even principles of traditional logic, a point achieving the coveted equality! Groothuis tries to use in marshaling the law of noncontradiction to her aid, “A and non-A cannot both be true at the same What Are the Presuppositions? time in the same respect” (304) or more Since Groothuis has written a commonly expressed, “A contradictory lengthy chapter, a brief review can- system cannot express a viable way of not begin to interact with her litany life.” Certainly Scripture will not express of views and positions, much less her two contradictory positions—even in two misinterpretations of complementarian different locations since all of Scripture is positions, such as the example previously 73 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

God-breathed. Perhaps the difference in marked by cooperation and interdepen- our presuppositions is pinpointed in the dence as found in the bibilical mandate. fact that I also believe Scripture is suf- She asserts that she has chosen the term ficient—timeless and timely all at once. “traditionalism,” along with “patriarchy” If, however, Groothuis refuses to exegete to identify the position opposite to Scripture, what difference will it make egalitarianism, and one must leave to if her experience trumps or reinterprets Groothuis herself whether or not these Scripture? choices were meant to be pejorative, Groothuis tries to juxtapose two based on modern perceptions of these clear theological truths: equality and words, which have been hijacked and subordination. She acknowledges the reprogrammed by feminists. On the other truth that women and men are equal hand, she seems quick to attempt to add ontologically and spiritually, but then to her egalitarianism a component of 3 she tries to interpret this principle to “complementarianism.” make it conform to contemporary cul- How are these terms defined by ture by suggesting that a truth from an objective dictionary? “Traditionalism God must be compatible with logical is a system holding that all knowledge is human reasoning. She posits that for derived from original divine revelation 4 complementarians to suggest ontological and then transmitted by tradition.” It equality but positional subordination in is further nuanced with the descriptor biblically dictated areas is illogical. But, “strongly favoring retention of the exist- 5 complementarians see no contradiction. ing order: conservative, orthodox, right.” They believe that the language of Scrip- I find no problem with this label for ture showing both equality and difference someone who believes that God imparted simply unite in a complementary way. For absolute truth in Scripture and that he example, the phrase used by the writer has given enough in his inspired Word of Genesis (Heb., ‘ezer kenegdo, literally that any serious seeker can find him and “helper like unto himself ”), defines the can know how to live. And if one has this way the woman functions or how she truth, does it not follow that this truth does her assignment, i.e., as a helper, can be transmitted from generation to while the rest of the phrase makes clear generation? that she is equal, like, and in the image “Patriarchy [Gk. patria, “father,” of God just as the man from whom and and arche, “beginning” or “rule”] is a for whom she was created (Gen 1:27; social system [going back to the begin- 2:18-23). ning of civilization] in which the father is the head of the family and men (i.e., the fathers) have authority over women What Are the Rules 6 and children.” Interestingly whether one of Engagement? takes the meaning to be “beginning with Groothuis seemingly refuses to fathers” or “rule of fathers,” the descrip- engage on the issue important to com- tion fits what is found in the creation plementarians, i.e., the text of Scrip- order and recorded in Scripture. As has ture—what does God say? Rather, she often been the case, feminists have re- insists on redefining complementarity, vised meanings of words as well as the a word she considers ambiguous, even facts of history. In the case of patriarchy, though the word was carefully coined to modern dictionaries note the meaning express a view of equality and oneness 74 SPRING 2005

accorded to this word in “gender politics review, and any movement away from as referring to any form of social power clear role distinctions grounded in the given disproportionately to men” and creation order makes it more difficult to consequently, as noted in the dictionary, avoid attacks on heterosexuality, which feminist writers argue “that it is necessary is not only normative but also divinely and desirable to get away from this model mandated. Perhaps this liability explains in order to achieve gender equality.” why some egalitarians, such as Stanley Again, the dictionary notes that “these Grenz and Groothuis herself, have tried writers are oversimplifying the complexi- to refine egalitarianism by linking it with ties of society, or that such gender roles complementarianism. If I were to follow are not necessarily harmful. . .” and the the lead of Groothuis in trying to reframe critics of such feministic tampering with the egalitarian position in relationship to the language and history note that femi- my own complementarianism, I would nists are “trying to replace patriarchy with couple egalitarianism with “anarchy” matriarchy,” which should be, if anything, (Gk. anarchia, “without a leader” or 7 “an equally harmful system.” “without head or chief ”). The definition Whatever the intentions of Groot- suggests “absence of any form of politi- huis, I am not offended by being labeled cal authority” or a world in which every a traditionalist or patriarchalist, if com- man or woman is a law unto himself monly understood and officially recorded ( Judg 21:25). The definition continues historical definitions are used. However, that there is the “absence of any cohe- I will not give up the identification as a sive principle, such a common standard 9 “complementarian,” which also clearly or purpose.” I choose not to identify identifies my position, nor will I allow Groothuis or CBE as anarchists because the term to be hijacked without my own of the misunderstanding of language personal protest by any who seek to cover technicalities in the perception of most their own diametrically opposite posi- people. I simply ask for the same courtesy tions by using a word warmly embraced on the part of egalitarians. Perception and by evangelicals, especially when in so understanding among the general public doing the true definition is distorted. demands a certain care and restraint in Groothuis seems comfortable with how one presents her own position and the egalitarian label, and the diction- even more so in how one presents the ary defines egalitarian as “affirming, position of one who differs. Perhaps the promoting, or characterized by belief in safest and most appropriate plan is for equal political, economic, social, and civil egalitarians to define themselves and rights for all people” or more simply “a support their platform from the biblical person who believes in the equality of all text and then engage complementarians 8 people.” Strict egalitarianism has run in the text of Scripture. into difficulty along the way, such as in Groothuis identifies her herme- material and political egalitarianism as neutic as much by what she does not cite within communism and liberation the- in her chapter as what she does write. ology. The Evangelical Women’s Caucus In an earlier monograph she says, “This split in 1986 over the lesbian influence book arises from my own experiences . . . and subsequent efforts by a lesbian and from the sampling of similar stories minority of egalitarians. This incursion that I have heard from other Christian found its way into this volume under women. . . . Experience . . . has a way of 75 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

nudging one’s mind into explorations of neatly with the culture. But is this cultural different perspectives and new alterna- revolution imposing itself upon Scripture 10 tives.” Groothuis alludes to Scripture, to mold God’s word into what is relevant saying that “experience is illuminated by for the age? God has spoken clearly that the truth of God’s Word and the guid- his children are not to be “squeezed into 11 ance of the Holy Spirit.” Nevertheless, the world’s mold” (Rom 12:2), but rather experience and contemporary culture they should be “transformed” so that they 13 appear to take precedence over scriptural can transform the world. exegesis. While shunning the obvious strug- Here lies her impasse with comple- gle between orthodoxy and heresy (on is- mentarians: Groothuis is seeking to sues such as the Trinity) and between the enhance her experience, thereby seeking biblical (which assumes a natural reading new ideas and different ways of living for of the whole of Scripture) and secular personal fulfillment and freedom in her (which by coincidence fits the feministic service to the Lord; on the other hand, agenda of the age perfectly), Groothuis many women and men, as I, are looking is absolutely correct in seeing that the for the truth of Scripture and obedience main battleground between egalitarians to the word of God. Passion for personal and complementarians is theological and 14 fulfillment and the liberty to follow the hermeneutical disagreement. way that seems most compatible with Groothuis does bring her reader giftedness and calling is not the motivat- to the continental divide in the issue ing factor. They are looking for the nar- of how men and women are to relate row path (Matt 7:13-14), the dying to self to one another in the home and in the (Matt 10:39), the giving up of personal church—where orthodoxy (what is right satisfaction and the opportunity to serve to believe) meets orthopraxy (what is the Lord on his terms however incon- right to do). From her position as an gruous they may seem in the modern egalitarian, to be consistent in making era (Prov 3:5-6). Of course, that narrow her case that there can be no differen- way with its clearly marked boundaries tiation in the roles of a husband and may seem to be characterized by what wife in the home or in the assignments Groothuis describes as a “maze of rules of the man and woman in the church, 12 and restrictions.” Yet many believers do she must establish the premise that any not feel “cruelly” forced behind certain differentiation means a corresponding lines, for Jesus himself set the example distinction in worth or value between of “delight[ing] to do his [the Father’s] them. That means tampering with the will” (Ps 40:8). Trinity since she must also establish that More preposterous and incongru- God the Father and God the Son are not ous is the way Groothuis speaks of “an only ontologically equal but also equal, agenda the church has imported from and the same, in their respective roles, modern culture” when feminism, ac- which would exclude the Son’s voluntary cording to recorded historical facts, is subordination to the Father. indeed the ideology overwhelming this Interestingly in centuries of church generation. It is manifesting itself in the history, the Son’s eternal subordination to church as “biblical” feminism or egalitari- the Father has not been questioned by anism. There are changes sweeping the the mainstream of orthodoxy, but objec- evangelical world, and they do indeed fit tions to this doctrine (beginning in the 76 SPRING 2005

fourth century with Arius who asserted that women were simply inferior persons 16 a natural inequality within the triunity by God’s design.” The evidence for such known as Arianism—a clearly identified universal assessment is not compelling. heresy) have come to the forefront in the But, even if it were, in the biblical record modern era through the ideologically (which is not addressed in her chapter), 15 motivated egalitarian discussions. These does Paul or Peter or Jesus Himself sug- discussions are not emerging from care- gest that women are inferior? All are ful exegesis of the biblical texts or from cognizant of the creation order and couch research into the documents of church their teaching within its boundaries. history. Any excursus into Scripture or To place the theologians or free-lance into the annals of church history would writers of the twentieth or twenty-first demonstrate that the Arian heresy—or century, or even of the eighteenth and “emphatic subordination”—is the denial nineteenth centuries, above the Church that the Son and the Father share the Fathers and the Reformers seems a bit same essence or nature. On the other presumptuous even if you put aside cer- 17 hand, the understanding of “economic tain passages of Scripture. subordination” or the subordination of What appears to be assigning mission or task was officially adopted inferiority to women may be merely as the orthodox position of the church the suggestion of God-ordained differ- from the fourth century (at the Council ences between women and men, e.g., in of Nicea) until now. The Son’s obedience the physical area. Groothuis may also did not denigrate him or lessen his worth interpret exegesis of a text discussing but exalted him and glorified the Father the divine assignment to women in an (Phil 2:5-11). Viewing a person’s worth author like Clement as making them solely according to his role and perceived inferior when, for example, Clement was status in society not only is not biblically very clear in presenting his ideas about based but also is a poor criterion for the importance of a woman’s work in interpersonal relationships. Who I am the home so much so that he noted she ultimately is not determined by what I should give her best energies to that task can do. My ultimate worth is found in and be in subordination to her husband. who I am in Christ—a woman created in In so doing, he made no distinction in his image. I may be unable to do certain spiritual responsibilities. He did see a tasks physically, emotionally, socially, clear division in her sphere of human or even spiritually (because of biblical activity or function. He expressed the boundaries), but God is interested in my woman’s position as “inferior” to the obedience—to his written word more man’s because of that position as one of than to what I feel he is revealing to my rank under the leadership and headship 18 own understanding. of her husband. Critics reveal their own presupposi- How Do You Evaluate the tions when they indicate that a woman’s worth is tied to her “authority” and the Historical Record? recognition of that authority by equity Groothius makes grand sweeping in household chores and in what she is statements for which she supplies little or allowed to do in the church. A careful no evidence. She suggests that “for most examination of most of what is found of church history women were denied from the pens of the Church Fathers equal status with men because it was held 77 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

does indeed confirm the functional a clear statement reflecting again her subordination of the woman, but it is own presuppositions: “Not even God can for her good and not for her hurt; and make a logical contradiction true. And if 19 more important it is based upon careful it can’t be true, it can’t be biblical.” But exegesis of the Scripture. There are also Groothuis has failed to show that the numerous letters of praise about women complementarian position is contrary from the Fathers. to logic. What is in view here are not In the New Testament, Phoebe the principles of Aristotelian logic, but is described as a “servant” and “helper” Groothuis’s understanding of those. Ap- (Rom 16:1-2), and “older” or spiritually propriately, one is reminded of Isaiah’s mature women are identified as teachers judgment, “‘For My thoughts are not your of younger women or women who are thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ new in the faith (Titus 2:3-5). Women declares the Lord” (Isa 55:8). Looking are described as wives and mothers and for emotional impressions or humanly daughters, and then there are clear in- reasoned conclusions is sublimated to structions on what it means to be a wife, the task of finding a sure word from mother, or daughter. So subordination God, which you first embrace by faith describes how a woman does her assign- and then learn its lessons on the road of ment in relation to a man; it is in itself obedience. not a task she performs. It is the pathway In interacting with such scholarly to obedience, and the obedience is clearly theologians as Grudem and Piper, Sch- to God even though he may evaluate reiner, Baldwin, Köstenberger, Ortlund, that obedience by how a woman relates Knight, Neuer, and Hurley who base to her husband or to those in authority their discussions and interpretations in the church. upon a careful exegesis of the text, “Rhetorical decoys” are tools used Groothuis would do well to engage them to pull attention away from the plain with straightforward exegesis. Debate reading and natural understanding of demands that you discuss the same top- Scripture. Such human logic and elo- ics from the same general framework quent discourse may appear to resolve the and using clearly defined language in the conflict between egalitarian philosophy classical sense. Any individual can find a of what is appropriate for modern culture way to substantiate almost any claim if and an enlightened society on the one allowed to redefine terms, revise history, hand and a complementarian under- reimagine doctrinal tenets proven over standing of what is written in Scripture the centuries, and trump hermeneutical to be understood as timeless principles understandings with personal experience above evaluation molded by personal ex- and cultural relevance. perience on the other. Timeless principles Even if the question of one’s experi- are not reinterpreted by personal experi- ence is broached, the results are different ence, but they become timely ways of from those Groothuis expects. Groot- understanding the principles embedded huis asks, “Why should an equal person in biblical truth and molding your life in be excluded from certain key areas of 20 obedience to those principles regardless human activity and ministry?” The first of how irrelevant they may appear to the problem is to define key areas. I have cho- logic of the modern mind. sen first and foremost to be a homemaker Groothuis caps her argument with (although my academic credentials and 78 SPRING 2005

perhaps even my giftedness and certainly man. This ontological statement is the my opportunities might open many more basis from which one can move forward options to me). Is this chosen “position” with further discussion. Egalitarians and or “role” or “assignment” not a key area? complementarians are agreed on this Why? Is to provide a place of comfort point—why try to make them seem at and nurture for my family and any others opposite ends of the spectrum? This point God brings to my path not important in is not debatable, at least among members the overall schema; to help my husband of The Council on Biblical Manhood with a myriad of tasks and to have reared and Womanhood and in the published my children up in the Lord and to invest works of complementarians now in the now in my grandchildren—who would marketplace. Second, a woman does dare say that homemaking and family are indeed exercise her own will. Biblical not key areas! And who would suggest submission calls for voluntarily choosing that such an assignment becomes a key to submit. R. T. France suggests a more area because I chose it! etymological translation of the Greek God established the home and verb: as “order oneself under,” based on relationships therein from creation. He the root tassō, which is concerned with does not leave to us important decisions “order” and on the regular usage of the like how we are to glorify him, and we Greek middle voice, which usually car- 21 do not select the choices that qualify us ries a reflexive sense. Thus, the choice for obedience! Homemaking is a key area has nothing to do with being “fit” or because God made it so with the many “unfit” but with being obedient to God. ministries that spring from this accepted Third, freedom and authority are tricky task. I did not “feel” called to do home- concepts in the biblical context if you making. I honored the biblical mandate are trying to understand these terms in set for women who choose to marry: I a secular world setting as opposed to a became a helper to my husband, and I spiritual framework. Freedom, according accepted the assignment of managing my to Scripture, is not the liberty to do what household and nurturing my children. you choose any more than authority is the However, if I had not married, I do not right to do what you feel you should do. believe for a minute that I would then Both of these terms are limited by put- have carte blanche to do anything I was ting aside personal rights and accepting gifted or trained to do in the kingdom the place God has given. The greatest of Christ. I am still under mandate to freedom is in bondage to Christ, includ- determine where I might serve within the ing the mandates he has given on how boundaries established by God himself. men and women are to live in relation Groothuis misrepresents the com- to one another, and exercising headship plementarian position by alleging that with authority that is given by him alone. complementarians believe that “by virtue There is indeed a contrast between the of her female being, a woman is fit to be ontological understanding of personal subject to man’s will and unfit to exer- worth and being on one hand and the cise her own will with the freedom and teleological understanding, which pres- authority accorded a man” (303). This ents the divine design or purpose for that distortion of the biblical text blurs the being, on the other. matter considerably. First, as a female, a woman is in the image of God just as the 79 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

A Concluding Word headship was defined as well Groothuis seems determined to (Eph 5:25-29); women also set imaginary boundaries beyond what have been given instruction is recorded in Scripture, perhaps from on how they do their assign- lack of a careful exegetical study or maybe ment, with a gentle and quiet even in an effort to make those boundar- spirit (1 Pet 3:3-4). ies appear so oppressive that they should be ignored as “illogical.” Consider again A beautiful plan—both equal- her attempt to shackle complementarians ity and complementarity are clearly with a position that they interpret Scrip- included. ture to mean that men are “fit” to do cer-

tain things that women are not “deemed 1 “Biblical Gender Equality: Complementarity With- fit to do.” Not only is this insulting to me out Hierarchy Interview,” IVP Academic Alert 14 as a complementarian who happens to be (Winter 2005): 1. 2 a woman, but it is to suggest a careless in- John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: terpretation of Scripture. For the record, Crossway, 1991), 87. 3 here is the basis for a complementarian Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids: Baker 1997), 15. view of Scripture: 4 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lan- guage, 4th ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 2000). 5 (1) Women and men are Ibid. 6 Ibid. created in the image of God 7 Ibid. (Gen 1:27) and are “joint 8 Ibid. 9 heirs” in their spiritual inheri- Ibid. 10 Groothuis, Good News for Women, 11. tance (1 Pet 3:7) and without 11 Ibid. distinction “in Christ Jesus” 12 Ibid., 12. 13 (Gal 3:28). Phillips’ translation of Rom 12:2. 14 Groothuis, Good News for Women, 15. (2) Women and men are cre- 15 ated with a divine purpose. In See articles by Stephen Kovach and Peter Schemm, “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordina- their relationship one with tion of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological the other they are to glorify Society 42 (1999): 461-76; and Bruce Ware, “Tam- God and provide a tool for pering with the Trinity: Does the Son submit to His God to reveal himself to his Father?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 4-12. 16 creation. Before the woman “Biblical Gender Equality,” 3. 17 was created, the man was See Charles Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church created and given a clear (Chicago: Moody, 1970), 53-122 for an excellent balanced discussion of the writings of the Church assignment, which included Fathers on women. See also my dissertation, Aspects spiritual leadership since he of a Biblical Theology of Womanhood, (D.Theol. diss., was entrusted with the clear University of South Africa, 1998), 23-30. If you really want to examine the subject, read the Church instruction on life and death Fathers in their own words—not a quote from them here and there. (Gen 2:15-17); the woman 18 was created from the man Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.10 (Ante- Nicene Fathers 2:283). 19 and for the man to be a helper “Biblical Gender Equality,” 3. 20 to him in his responsibil- Ibid. 21 ity (Gen 2:18); the man was R. T. France, Women in the Church’s Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 33-34. See also my ex- clearly identified as the head tended discussion in my Aspects of a Biblical Theology or leader (1 Cor 11:3); his of Womanhood, 192-95. 80 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 81-87 “The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women” (Ch 19) by Kevin Giles Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Dean, Southeastern College at Wake Forest Associate Professor of Christian Theology Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

1 Introduction Content of the Chapter Author Kevin Giles’s contribution to Discovering Biblical Equality is a re- Purpose and Thesis buttal of the doctrine of the eternal sub- Giles’s purpose is to explain what he ordination of the Son and Spirit to the calls the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, Father. It is a chapter-length exposition compared with an unorthodox view that of a thesis he develops in full in his The 2 is championed by many evangelicals to- Trinity and Subordinationism. He seems day. He asserts that “to teach the eternal to assert, as most complementarians do, subordination of the Son to the Father that the eternal relationships within the in being or role, person or function, is to Godhead do have some theological and teach contrary to the way the best theo- practical bearing for how the husband- logians have interpreted the Bible across wife and man-woman relationships the centuries and to reject what the creeds should be viewed. For Giles, though, and the Reformation confessions of faith subordination in role necessarily entails affirm” (336). Arguing that tradition is on inferiority in being; this leads him to his side, the author claims that orthodox reject the equal-yet-different paradigm expressions of the Trinity reject every of gender roles. form of the eternal subordination of the This review will survey the chap- Son. To ignore theological tradition in ter’s contents, and then provide some this case is to step out of the boundaries thoughts on critical mistakes Giles makes of orthodoxy. in his thesis, theological method, usage By rejecting the doctrine of the of important terms, representation of a eternal subordination of the Son in any few key theologians. form or fashion, Giles hopes to dismiss the argument made by those he calls “conservative evangelicals.” They believe 81 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

this doctrine contributes to a biblical nation while clearly denying any eternal understanding of the ontological equality subordination, either in being or work. of women and men in the home and in Giles writes, “For Athanasius, ontologi- the church, while preserving functional cal equality demanded functional equal- subordination. He argues, to the contrary, ity. One implied the other” (339). Giles that personal equality cannot be recon- goes on to write that since the Father ciled to permanent role subordination. and Son always act “cooperatively and Giles begins his argument by out- conjointly” (340), the distinction between lining the alternative positions, stating them made by Athanasius is seen in their that all believers affirm the subordina- relations to one another. In other words, tion of the Son in the incarnation. His the primary difference between these view, which he believes expresses historic two members of the Godhead is that the orthodoxy, limits subordination to the Son is not the Father and the Father is incarnation. On the other hand are those not the Son. who, according to Giles, argue that “the Giles surveys Augustine’s under- subordination of the Son seen in the standing of subordination as well, noting incarnation defines his relationship with that Augustine begins his important De the Father in the eternal or immanent Trinitate with an appeal to the complete Trinity” (337). These types of thinkers equality of the members of the Trinity. have “always” been around (337). Most Similar to Athanasius, Augustine sets a conservative evangelicals, however, put a “canonical rule” (341) whereby all passag- new twist on an old idea by claiming that es that speak to the subordination of the the Son is eternally subordinated to the Son refer only to his incarnation. As in Father in role and function, not in being. his discussion of Athanasius, Giles asserts Giles claims that this position arose out that Augustine believed “the Persons of of the need to find theological justifica- the Trinity are differentiated primarily by tion for maintaining a male-dominated their relations to one another” (342). church and societal order in the wake of ’s understanding of the women’s liberation movement of the trinitarian doctrine is also surveyed. 1960s. His problem is that this teaching Calvin begins his treatment of the Trinity stands in the lineage of heretical subor- in the Institutes by explaining what “the dinationist teachings of the past. divine three” ought to be called (342). He suggests that the term “person” be under- The Historical Argument stood as a subsistence in God’s essence. Giles then turns his attention to Though Calvin does not explain exactly the theologians that he says rejected all what this differentiating subsistence is, talk of subordination within the God- he is clear that the three subsistences, or head. Athanasius is the most important persons, share equally in the divine be- contributor to the early development of ing or essence of God. From this Giles the doctrine because he, unlike Arius, concludes, “This definition of a divine properly understood the entire scope of Person does not allow for any subordina- the Bible. Two passages determined his tion whatsoever” (342). thinking on this: the prologue to John’s Giles goes on to explain that his- Gospel, and Phil 2:5-11. Thus, accord- toric Christian creeds and confessions ing to Giles, Athanasius affirms the implicitly exclude “the eternal subordina- temporary subordination in the incar- tion of the Son in function/role,” because 82 SPRING 2005

they confess that the Father and the Son His goal is to show the “orthodox” view are “one in being” (344). He says that the of the doctrine of the Trinity, and in so Athanasian Creed in particular grounds doing, to prove that the eternal functional the distinctions in the Trinity in differing subordination of the Son falls outside of 3 relations, not works or function (345). the boundaries of orthodoxy (336-337). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century But the question of whether or not the ontological subordinationism is most no- Son is temporarily or eternally subor- tably expressed in the work of Princeton dinated to the Father is not a matter of theologian Charles Hodge. Giles views trinitarian orthodoxy. Numerous schol- Hodge’s proposal as making the Father ars have shown this either explicitly or ontologically superior to the Son and implicitly—whether in agreement with 4 Spirit. Thus, says Giles, “[A]lthough the eternal subordination or not. There is Son is divine, he is subordinate in his be- room in trinitarian orthodoxy for both ing as the Son as well as in his work as the views. Those who argue for the eternal Son” (346). Giles credits late twentieth functional subordination of the Son century theologians with rescuing the do not claim that those rejecting it are doctrine of the Trinity from this bleak outside of the boundaries of trinitarian 5 period, citing Millard Erickson, David orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the same Cunningham, and Wayne House as re- cannot be said of Giles in his criticism cent evangelical examples. of those who do affirm the eternal func- Giles concludes with a short sec- tional subordination of the Son. tion on what he calls “reading the Bible There are several weaknesses in theologically” (348), which is essentially Giles’s thesis and theological method. a restatement of his view of how Athana- First, he builds his thesis on the relation- sius and Augustine battled Arian teach- ship between tradition (as a theological ing. Quoting Bible texts back and forth source) and the concept of subordination across a doctrinal divide is often fruitless. rather than on the more important ques- Instead, the proper course is to determine tion one must ask regarding the concept what is “theologically primary” (348) by of subordination—that is, what does the looking at the Bible and church tradition Bible teach about the concept of subordi- to see how the Scripture must be read nation? Evangelicals ought to agree that and interpreted. His final conclusion is there is something intentionally good, by that “the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity God’s design, about the biblical concept stands in opposition” to those who hold of one-way submission or subordina- to the eternal functional subordination of tion found in trinitarian relations and the Son and the ordering of male-female male-female relations in particular. The relationships (352). biblical emphasis on the value of one- way submission in relationships (seen, Evaluation of Giles’s Work for example, in John’s Gospel on the Trinity, in Paul on male-female relations, and in Peter on master-slave relations) Thesis and Theological is completely obscured in Giles’s treat- Method ment. In other words, tradition properly Giles’s thesis is greatly hindered by understood as a theological source should the fact that he sustains a misunderstand- never obscure the clear teaching of a ing about the nature of the discussion. biblical concept. 83 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Second, tradition as a source or fended assumptions. contributor in theology has been invested with far too much hermeneutical value. Usage of Important Terms Giles’s chapter is largely devoted to quot- The terms “subordination” and ing selectively from church fathers, thus “subordinationism” are used frequently establishing the orthodoxy of his posi- in the context of trinitarian discussion, tion. For him, this tradition is defined as and have a clearly defined usage. Theo- the way the Bible has been read or inter- logians of the past have spoken in some preted by the best theologians of church sense of the subordination of the Son history (336). Tradition as a theological and the Spirit within the boundaries of source is not a new concept. Theologians orthodoxy. Subordinationism, however, have long recognized four major sources describes a heretical formulation of the for doing theology: Scripture, reason, 6 doctrine of God, usually referred to as on- tradition, and experience. But, affirming tological subordinationism. Ontological tradition as a theological or hermeneuti- subordinationism is recognized as heresy cal source does not necessarily require because it says the Son and Spirit do not that there be a variety of valid readings share directly in the very being or essence of a text of Scripture. of God the Father. The term subordina- Also, Giles assumes from the outset tionism, then, is not used functionally that subordination always and necessarily (eternal or temporal) but rather ontologi- involves inferiority. Without proper ex- cally (regarding being and essence only). 7 planation, this is a non sequitur. In order This usage is well attested. to make his case he misinterprets comple- Giles ignores the accepted distinc- mentarian views and then links them to tion between these terms. Instead of these false assumptions. For example, he offering an objective assessment of the summarizes a complementarian view by possibility of the doctrine of the eternal saying, “women—simply because they are subordination of the Son, Giles ignores women—are the subordinate sex and this the very helpful categorical distinction can never change. Surely this suggests made between subordination and sub- that women are inferior to men in some ordinationism (337, 339, 340, 342, 345, way” (338). This is a misunderstand- 347). Grudem, Kovach and Schemm, ing of complementarianism. Regarding and Letham all affirm the ontological eternal subordination in particular, he equality of the Son with the Father and writes, “[W]hen subordination is both in so doing reject the heresy of onto- 8 permanent and obligatory, the personal logical subordinationism. Furthermore, inferiority of the subordinate is implied. those who authored the 1999 Sydney If one party is always and necessarily Doctrine Report argue for an ontologi- subordinate to the other, the subordinate cal basis of the subordination of the Son person must lack something the superior (335), yet another expression within the person possesses” (348). Again, this is a bounds of orthodoxy. They also affirm poor understanding of the doctrine of the complete equality of being/essence of eternal functional subordination, and the Son even if it is expressed in a more 9 his second statement does not follow Eastern (derived) sense. In short, most from his first without more explanation. of the theologians cited in this chapter “Subordination” and “inferiority” are not have been unfairly represented, if not synonymous terms, despite Giles’s unde- misrepresented. 84 SPRING 2005

Theologians on the Eternal up in the wrong place, it is not so much Subordination of the Son due to making the Bible mean whatever Athanasius is the most important he wants it to mean. Rather, Arius, like theologian in this discussion not only Athanasius, has significant theological because of his understanding of the presuppositions driving his interpretation of the text. Arius starts theologically in relationship between the Father and 14 the Son but also because Giles claims the wrong place. One does not get this to be following his lead hermeneuti- sense from Giles and thus the reality of cally. As far as interpretive method goes, the textual battle over Nicene orthodoxy Giles repeatedly claims to be following has not been presented accurately. There Athanasius’s “scope” of Scripture (339, is much more to say about Patristic ex- 348-349). By scope of Scripture, Giles egesis before, during, and after Nicea, but understands Athanasius to mean “how suffice it to say that the parallels between the Bible should be correctly read” (339). Arian heretics and those arguing for the In as much as Giles presents the scope of eternal functional subordination of the Scripture as the proper way to view the Son may not be quite as obvious to oth- incarnation of the Word for the purpose ers as to Giles. 10 of human salvation, he is correct. How- Concerning Augustine, Giles states ever, Giles’s use of Athanasius’s concept rightly that the great theologian sought of the scope of Scripture is problematic to “prove by appeal to the Bible the in at least two ways. complete equality of the divine Persons” First, Athanasius’s concept is not so (341). That is not in doubt. But he goes much a hermeneutical method that dis- on to say that when Augustine wrote in tinguishes the incarnational nature of the De Trinitate of the sending of the Son, Son from the ontological nature of the “what is in mind is the Son’s mission to Son, as Giles suggests, as much as it is a become the incarnate mediator” (341). hermeneutic that unites the incarnational According to Giles, this sending should nature with the ontological—or better, not be understood to relate to the eternal that grounds the incarnational nature relations between the Persons. Robert in the being of God for the purpose of Letham has rightly criticized such an 11 human salvation. Thus it does not nec- approach to Augustine’s work. He points essarily follow that Athanasius categori- out that in Augustine’s mind the sending of the Son precedes the work for which cally rejects the eternal functional sub- 15 ordination of the Son. It is arguable that he is sent. The bishop of Hippo wrote, Athanasius envisages an eternal order in “The Son is not only said to have been the Godhead that harmonizes well with sent because the Word was made flesh, 12 but therefore sent that the Word might the concept of eternal subordination. 16 Additionally, it is important to recognize be made flesh.” Letham writes that that Athanasius’s understanding of the Augustine’s conclusion is in fact that the Father as “unoriginate” and “uncaused” “sending preceded his incarnation, and in the divine being suggests an eternal so his incarnate life and ministry can 13 (as appropriate) reveal something of his irreversible order in the Trinity. 17 Second, Giles overstates the con- eternal relations.” trast between Athanasius’s theological It is not easily demonstrated that method (scope of Scripture) and Arius’s Calvin rejects a subordination or rela- proof-text method. While Arius ends tional order among the persons of the 85 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Trinity either. The opposite appears to Conclusion: On the be the case. For example, Calvin calls the Son’s Subordination Father the “first in order,” and identifies Giles claims that in order to main- him as “the beginning and fountainhead 18 tain an orthodox view of the doctrine of of the whole divinity.” Again he says, the Trinity one must reject the possibility “We admit that in respect to order and of the eternal functional subordination degree the beginning of divinity is in 19 of the Son to the Father. He argues the Father.” Calvin explains that the that the history of trinitarian doctrinal distinctions of the Persons carry peculiar development affirms his view. Further, qualities such that there is an irreversible he suggests that all modern trinitarian order among them. The three Persons expressions that harmonize with the share in the same essence and yet a rea- Nicene tradition reject the possibility soned order is kept among them—such of the eternal subordination of the Son, an order, however, does not take away 20 whether in being or in function. The pri- from the deity of the Son and Spirit. mary purpose of this article, however, has Hodge understood Calvin to teach been to show that Giles often overstates that in some sense the Son is subordinate his case and in some instances simply to the Father. After citing a lengthy misrepresents the facts. The question of section of Calvin, Hodge summarizes, the eternal subordination of the Son is “We have here the three essential facts not a question of trinitarian orthodoxy. involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, Further, the evidence given ought to namely, unity of essence, distinction of encourage readers to investigate more persons, and subordination without any 21 thoroughly the way Giles represents attempt at explanation.” Robert L. each theologian he uses to present his Reymond, who goes to great lengths to claims. Apparently, these reviewers see explain exactly what it is he thinks Calvin the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy as means by the eternal generation of the a bit wider than does Giles—something Son, is more careful than Giles in his for which traditionalists are not normally assessment of Calvin’s view of the Son’s known. In the end, Giles’s intention to subordination. He says Calvin contends expose the heresy of the eternal func- against all subordination with respect to 22 tional subordination of the Son has not the Son’s “divine essence.” Conclud- been successful. ing his treatment of the generation of the Son, Reymond explains that he is in agreement with Calvin’s view that 1 the Father precedes the Son by reason This article is an abbreviated version of my “Kevin Giles’s The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review of order—however, going beyond what Article” in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Wom- “order” means he cannot say. Like Cal- anhood 7, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 67-78. I am grateful to vin, however, he is sure about rejecting Jason Hall for his assistance in adapting that review for its purpose in examining Giles’s work in DBE. 2 ontological subordinationism—“there is Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism: The no essential subordination of the Son to Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate 23 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002). the Father within the Godhead.” 3 The “eternal functional subordination” of the Son is to be distinguished from the “eternal subordination” of the Son. Without the qualifier “functional,” it is possible, though not correct, to read the word “eternal” as synonymous with “ontological.” I prefer the phrase “eternal functional subordination” because it makes 86 SPRING 2005

clear that the Son’s subordination is not “ontological tory, Theology and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, subordinationism.” 2005), 494. 4 16 Cf. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. in one Augustine, De Trinitate 2.5.7 17 (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1907), 343-44; Stanley Letham, The Holy Trinity, 494. 18 J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 60; Craig S. Keener, “Is 1.13.25. 19 Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Ibid., 1.13.24. 20 Study of John 5:18 in Context,” Trinity Journal 20, Ibid., 1.13.20. 21 no. 1 (1999): 39-51; and John M. Frame, The Doctrine Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology(Grand Rapids: of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 719-22. Eerdmans, 1995), 1:467; cf. 528-29. 5 22 I am are unaware of any evangelical who affirms the Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of “eternal functional subordination” of the Son and in so the Christian Faith, 2d ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, doing also declares that those who do not support the 1998), 326. 23 same view are outside of the boundaries of trinitarian Ibid., 335. orthodoxy. The purpose of Kovach and Schemm’s article, for example, was to defend the view in light of an apparently revisionist reading of the history of the doctrine, not to argue that “temporal functional sub- ordination” is outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy. See Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordina- tion of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 461-76. 6 See Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 3d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 159. 7 See “Subordinationism” in Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., Dictionary of Theology, 2d ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1981); Millard Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); Frances Young, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983); Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, Der- mot A. Lane, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987); see also Michael E. Bauman, “Milton, Subordinationism, and the Two-Stage Logos,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 177-182. 8 See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rap- ids: Zondervan, 1994) 251; Kovach and Schemm, “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” 462-63; Robert Letham, “The Man- Woman Debate: Theological Comment,”Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 67. 9 Cf. John V. Dahms’s articles on this: “The Genera- tion of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32 (1989): 493-501; and “The Subordination of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 351-64. 10 See James D. Ernest, “Athanasius of Alexandria: The Scope of Scripture in Polemical and Pastoral Con- text,” Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 341-62. 11 Ibid., 342, 351. 12 See Kovach and Schemm, “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” 466-67. 13 Alvyn Pettersen, Athanasius (Harrisburg, PA: More- house, 1995), 164-67. 14 See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 227. 15 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, His- 87 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 88-95 “Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender” (Ch 20) by Roger Nicole and “Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate” (Ch 21) by Gordon D. Fee Andreas J. Köstenbereger Professor of New Testament and Greek Director of Ph.D. and Th.M. Studies Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

Introduction the passages relevant to the gender dis- Since its inception in the 1970s, cussion” (355). At the very outset, Nicole North American egalitarianism has affirms the divine authorship of Scripture developed a distinct hermeneutic of its and the primacy of authorial intent. In own with regard to its interpretation of the remainder of his short piece, Nicole gender-related passages in Scripture. It puts forth six foundational hermeneutical is not the purpose of the present article principles for evangelical interpretation. 1 to address this subject comprehensively. Rather, the scope of this brief essay is These are limited to providing a response to the (1) literal or figurative hermeneutical chapters by Roger Nicole meaning; and Gordon Fee in the book Discovering ( 2 ) p r e s c r i p t i v e o r 2 Biblical Equality. descriptive texts; (3) individual, collective and Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic universal references; (4) peripheral versus central Principles and Questions doctrines; of Gender (5) fragmentary versus In his 8½-page long chapter en- canonical interpretations; titled “Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic and Principles and Questions of Gender” (6) the situation of those Roger Nicole sets out to “show how fol- b e i n g a d d r e s s e d o r lowing valid hermeneutical principles represented. will aid in the proper understanding of 88 SPRING 2005

In principle, these distinctions for the proper ordering of relationships are unobjectionable, and Nicole is to be and ministries in the church. Because commended for setting them forth as God first created the man, and then common ground for discussion. Nicole’s the woman, Paul argues, and because application of these principles, however, of the grievous consequences resulting is not quite as unobjectionable. For ex- from God’s creation order, it is likewise ample, Nicole writes that “Paul’s descrip- men, not women, who ought to teach tive analogy between Adam’s priority and have authority in the church, while in creation and Eve’s priority in sin in women ought to learn in full submission 1 Timothy 2:13–14—even though it is (vv. 11–12). Nicole has unduly truncated used to support the ad hoc prescription Paul’s argument and hence missed the in 1 Timothy 2:12—seems to fall far important connection between Paul’s short of being theologically prescrip- command in v. 12 and its biblical founda- tive or determinative” (357). In a related tion as cited in verses 13 and 14. footnote, he asserts that the “primary Nicole goes on to assert that point of the analogy is that the woman, “patriarchy is never prescribed in either who was created second, was first to yield Testament” (357). Thus 1 Tim 2:12 can- to the deception of Satan” and admon- not be prescriptive. Once again, however, ishes, “One simply cannot make universal Nicole’s presuppositions seem to be driv- gender statements on the basis of ad hoc ing and predetermining exegesis. At the descriptions that are used to serve other very start he classifies 1 Tim 2:12 as a points” (357, n. 5). “patriarchal text,” and since “patriarchy There are several problems with is never prescribed in either Testament,” this line of argument. First, Nicole as- 1 Tim 2:12 cannot be prescriptive (357). sumes at the very outset that 1 Tim 2:12 This, of course, is not exegesis, but an is an “ad hoc” prescription or description exercise in dogmatic deduction. (following Gordon Fee?), which begs the As a second case in point, Nicole question in presupposing non-normativ- cites Paul’s “description” of male author- ity from the start. Yet the prescriptive or ity “in the Greco-Roman household,” descriptive nature of this statement must which, according to Nicole, “does not at- be demonstrated, not assumed. Second, tain to a prescription for all times” (358). Nicole unduly conflates verses 13 and 14 Nicole even asserts that “husbands are by reducing their message to Eve, having never instructed in the Bible to ‘exercise been created second, yielding first to the authority over,’ ‘provide leadership for’ or temptation. More likely, however, Paul in ‘be responsible for’ their wives” (358). This these verses adduces two arguments, not is an astonishing claim in light of the fact one: women are not to teach or have au- that Paul, in Eph 5:22–24 plainly states, thority over men because (1) Adam was “Wives, submit to your husbands as to created first, then Eve (v. 13); and (2) Eve the Lord. For the husband is the head sinned first, thus subverting the divine of the wife as Christ is the head of the pattern, with disastrous consequences (v. church . . . Now as the church submits 14). Hence, according to Paul, the Fall to Christ, so also wives should submit to of humanity flowed from a violation of their husbands in everything.” Earlier in the implications of the order of creation, the same epistle, Paul wrote that “God which is of permanent significance. placed all things under his [Christ’s] This, in turn, has ramifications feet and appointed him to be head over 89 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

everything for the church” (Eph 1:22). for church leaders, both elders/overseers In context, Christ’s headship is defined and deacons. Here Nicole seems to be as being “far above all rule and authority, considerably more radical than other power and dominion,” extending even to egalitarians who would be reluctant to the heavenly realm, including Satan and set aside passages such as these as “non- demons, and both to the present age and prescriptive” and hence “peripheral.” to the age to come (Eph 1:21). Once again, while the overall In light of passages such as these, guideline adduced by Nicole seems how can Nicole say that “husbands are sound in principle, his application of never instructed in the Bible to ‘exercise this principle to the interpretation of authority over,’ ‘provide leadership for’ gender-related passages in Scripture or ‘be responsible for’ their wives” (358)? seems unduly guided by his egalitarian He himself seems to sense the weakness presuppositions which predetermine the of his position when he concedes that outcome and make hermeneutics a tool Scripture may do so “by implication,” in the exegete’s hand that allows him to but maintains that “implication is not steer the exegesis of a given passage or set prescription.” Is Christ’s authority over of passages in a desired direction rather the church and its need to submit to him than serving as a foundation that guides as head then optional and “merely de- exegesis in keeping with the message of 3 scriptive” as well? It seems hard to avoid a given text, interpreted in context. the impression that egalitarians such as Nicole concludes that “most of the Nicole here go to some lengths in trying differences between patriarchalists [his to evade the clear, abiding significance preferred term for complementarians] of a natural, straightforward reading of and egalitarians in the present gender de- the text. bate are hermeneutically based” (363). He For these reasons the distinction expresses his hope that by setting forth between prescriptive and descriptive some basic principles of hermeneutics texts adduced by Nicole is unobjection- there will be common ground on which able as such, but Nicole’s application of to move toward greater consensus or at this principle is highly dubious at several least a more reasoned debate. As the brief points. interaction above demonstrates, however, Another questionable applica- the problem seems to be not so much on tion is found in the context of Nicole’s the level of hermeneutical theory but at discussion of “peripheral versus central the point of the application of these her- doctrines.” Nicole proposes that “Spirit meneutical principles in practice. gifting, which receives considerable at- Hence the solution, likewise, is to tention in the New Testament,” ought to be found in the foundational presupposi- be viewed as “more central than ‘church tions driving the practical application of order,’ ” asserting that “there is no prescrip- hermeneutical principles by interpreters tive passage that dictates the structures of biblical gender passages. The final or nature of church order” (359). Once arbiter must remain the text of Scrip- again, this is an astonishing claim in light ture itself: Does a given interpretation of the fact that a considerable portion of attain plausibility and probability as a the Pastoral epistles, including passages valid understanding of a passage in the such as 1 Tim 3:1–12, are given to apos- light of context, word meanings, syntax, tolic directives concerning qualifications historical-cultural background, and so 90 SPRING 2005

on, or does it appear strained and merely own form of idolatry” (370). Although possible but not probable? It is my obser- it is our human tendency to eliminate vation and conviction that the egalitarian ambiguity, we must learn to trust God. interpretation of the major gender texts God gave us his Word in the context of in Scripture often falls in the latter, rather particular historical circumstances and than the former, category. by way of certain literary genres. This constitutes a divine accommodation to Hermeneutics and the our human situation. Gender Debate Also, we find in Scripture diversity We turn now to Gordon Fee’s 18- within an essential unity. The traditional page chapter on “Hermeneutics and the principle of the “analogy of Scripture” is Gender Debate,” some of which appeared helpful, but sometimes difficult to apply. previously in Gospel and Spirit: Issues in Forced harmonization is to be resisted. 4 New Testament Hermeneutics. At the Hence, Fee notes that Scripture reveals “a outset, Fee, who is Pentecostal, sets “the degree of ambiguity, accommodation and gospel of grace and gifting” over against diversity,” which causes many to opt for “Paul’s own rejection of law keeping” the extremes of fundamentalism or liber- (i.e., legalism) and an approach that turns alism” (371). Fee instead urges a “radical “questions of gender relationships into a middle” aimed at a “higher degree of form of law in which ‘roles’ and ‘struc- common understanding,” reaffirming -au tures’ are placed on the same level as the thorial intentionality over against reader- ethical obligation to love one’s neighbor” response criticism and postmodernism” (364-65). (371). As Fee himself observes, little that In his section on “Why Hermeneu- he has said so far is controversial or under tics?” Fee affirms the importance of the dispute by evangelicals, including those biblical author’s intended meaning, notes engaging in the debate over gender roles the impact of the presuppositions of the in the church. interpreter, and stresses the significance The rest of Fee’s essay is devoted to of relevance. He proceeds to outline what two areas of concern: (1) the construc- are the distinctively evangelical presup- tion of “theology by way of implication” positions about the nature of Scripture rather than on the basis of clear and ex- and the source of authority as resting plicit statements in Scripture (similar to intrinsically in Scripture as external to the Nicole’s distinction between descriptive interpreter. He also discusses the inspira- and prescriptive texts, see above); and tion of Scripture and notes both divine (2) the practice of turning ad hoc bibli- and human aspects of Scripture and the cal commands into “a form of Christian implications of Scripture being a divine law.” On the first matter, Fee contrasts as well as a human word. universal human sinfulness (clear) with Fee proceeds to sketch the “fun- the nature of the resurrection body (dis- damentalist mindset” as one driven by a puted). Other less-than-clear matters “longing for absoluteness in all matters” cited by Fee are tongues as initial physi- and detects an ancient precedent in the cal evidence of Spirit baptism; the mode Pharisees’ practice of legalism and of put- of baptism; and frequency of Eucharist ting a “hedge around the law” (369). Ac- observance. cording to Fee, being unwilling to trust Fee puts male-female relationships God “without absolute certainty” is “its in both church and home in this latter 91 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

category—according to Fee, “[T]here is no question that these texts reflect the no explicit teaching in the New Testa- patriarchal worldview of the Greco-Ro- ment either about this relationship or man world” (375)! If patriarchy is taught about church order, structures of worship” in Eph 5:21–33 only by implication, how (374). This, for Fee, includes the notion can Fee say the passage without a doubt “that only men may hold certain church reflects patriarchy? This seems to be a offices” and even the very notion of “of- clear contradiction. fices” in the church itself. The reader at Second, Fee says that Eph 5:21–33 this point may ask, “What about Eph is limited in application to certain wealthy 5:21–33?” According to Fee, Paul here households and to a patriarchal Greco- “assumes a Greco-Roman patriarchal Roman setting and hence relative and culture . . . but he does not thereby bless culture-bound. He did not get this from the culture itself nor explicitly instruct the text itself which he claims is what is men to exercise authority over their wives” the proper object of interpretation, nor (374). He contends that the household is there any evidence that such a limited codes in Colossians and Ephesians are application was authorially intended especially “elitist,” being directed toward (which, to determine, Fee affirms to be only certain wealthier households. the proper aim of interpretation). Fee concludes that in light of “the Rather, Fee’s interpretation of Eph ambiguity of the New Testament evi- 5:21–33 is a good example of how a par- dence and the lack of explicit teaching ticular reconstruction of the historical on patriarchy as the norm in the new background of a given passage is used to creation,” deriving “a theology of patri- overwhelm and in fact mute the explicit archy” from Eph 5:21–33 is illegitimate teaching of Scripture. One wonders if the (375). He has no doubt that this passage biblical teaching on male-female roles in reflects the patriarchy of the Greco-Ro- the home really belongs in the category man world, but he maintains that it of mode of immersion, frequency of does not therefore bless this worldview Eucharist observance, and tongues as theologically. Rather, Paul is merely initial sign of Spirit baptism, or if this concerned to tell believers how to live teaching is in fact more central and clear out their Christian lives in a patriarchal than Fee allows. 5 setting such as their current one (375). In I have engaged Fee at some length a footnote, Fee acknowledges that “some in my forthcoming commentary on the use Ephesians 5:23 (‘the husband is the Pastoral Epistles in the New Expositor’s head of the wife as Christ is the head Bible Commentary series and thus will of the church’) to theologize regarding refrain from doing so here as far as his patriarchy,” but according to Fee, this is interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12, his second “full of dubious exegetical jumps” (376, example of “theology by implication,” is referring to comments found elsewhere concerned. Fee interprets authentein as in DBE). “domineer,” referring to Linda Belleville, This is an interesting strategy. First, a view that has been adequately critiqued Fee says the husband’s headship and above. As in his previous writings, Fee the wife’s submission are taught merely dismisses Paul’s teaching in this pas- “by implication” rather than explicitly. sage by labeling it “ad hoc.” Yet in light On this count, of course, one wonders of Paul’s use of Genesis 2–3 elsewhere how Fee can still affirm that “[t]here is in his writings (see, e.g., 1 Cor 11:8–9, 92 SPRING 2005

written several years prior to 1 Timo- of the new creation in Christ. thy), it is unclear how Paul’s use of this What should be the response of portion of Scripture in 1 Tim 2:13–14 those who are here charged with pharisa- 6 could possibly qualify as “ad hoc.” More ism and obscurantism? Are we in truth likely, the argument from the man’s prior standing in the way of “the gospel of creation to the man’s authority in the grace” and the free operation of the Spirit church formed part of Paul’s customary in the home and in the church? This rationale. Likewise, as in his commentary, would be a grave sin indeed. But could Fee glosses over 1 Tim 2:13 and only it be that Fee’s case is in fact weaker than comments on 1 Tim 2:14, which fails to he allows? Could it be that the biblical do justice to Paul’s rooting of his injunc- teaching is clearer and more explicit tion in 1 Tim 2:12 in creation order prior on this subject than he allows? Could to the Fall. it be that his exegesis is less driven by Fee believes he has established that the respect for authorial intention and a “no New Testament text explicitly teaches supreme regard for the text itself than he patriarchy as the divine order that is to believes? Let the reader decide. prevail across the two biblical covenants” (377). However, Fee does not consider Conclusion passages such as 1 Cor 11:3: “Now I want It seems that one of the major you to realize that the head of every man purposes of Discovering Biblical Equality, is Christ, and the head of the woman is if not the primary one, is to contest and man, and the head of Christ is God,” try to recapture the term “complementar- which seems to have direct application ity.” This is done by the consistent label to the subject at hand. When Fee claims of “patriarchalist” and “hierarchicalist” that “the analogy . . . that man is to rule applied to complementarians, in an ap- woman because he was created prior to parent effort to push complementarians woman . . . occurs nowhere else in all of further to the right. In effect, the editors Scripture [apart from 1 Tim 2:12–13]” and contributors to this book seem to (377), he fails to mention 1 Cor 11:8–9, deny that there is any difference between a clear misstatement of fact. those advocating modern-day patriarchy To conclude, Fee sees 1 Tim 2:12 and complementarians, or if they do, this “as an ad hoc word intending to forbid is glossed over in order to pronounce some young widows from being carriers complementarians “guilty by association” of the ‘diseased’ teaching in Ephesus,” with those advocating a return to Old and maintains that the household codes Testament patriarchy. in Ephesians and Colossians “are not Apart from the fact that this in- intended at all to set boundaries” for volves a distortion of Old Testament anyone (380). Rather than legalism and patriarchy—see Dan Block’s magisterial 7 narrow-mindedness, what counts are recent treatment of this issue —this de- Spirit gifting and a love ethic. “Patriar- liberately misrepresents the way in which chalists” fail to recognize the ambiguity complementarianism has consciously and diversity of the scriptural witness distinguished itself from patriarchy with regard to gender roles in the home ever since its inception. What is more, and the church and pharisaically oblige focusing on “labeling” and “naming” women to a patriarchal system that is and “renaming” may take a page out of merely culturally constrained but not part the feminist playbook, but this cannot 93 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

conceal the fact that the primary thrust the intended recipients of this volume of Discovering Biblical Equality does not so that they will not be misled as to the seem to lie in the exegetical arena but in true nature of the biblical teaching on the area of politics and propaganda. the subject. By the same token, complemen- In the end, this debate is about tarians may want to take up the term truth, not politics; about exegetical re- “egalitarian,” since they affirm women’s sponsibility, not propaganda. As Gordon and men’s equality in creation and salva- Fee himself affirms, “The scriptural view tion, in both dignity and worth, to make is that one must speak the truth in love” the point that egalitarians are not the (369). We ought not to trivialize the is- only ones to do so. Why not flip-flop and sue by substituting rhetoric for substance. henceforth call egalitarians “complemen- We ought not to marginalize the issue by tarians” and complementarians “egalitar- obscuring the clarity of Scripture. Rather, ians”? The absurdity of this proposal, we should keep our Christian liberty and I think, illustrates that, in the end, the God’s creation order in proper balance; debate ought to be about more than mere understand how God’s household, the relabeling the other side of the debate church, is rooted in God’s order for the and scoring propaganda points. original household of husband and wife; Most complementarians I know cheerfully and jointly submit to the God do not focus on “hierarchy” in the sense of Scripture and trust that his creational of a top-down military structure and a wisdom is best; and appropriate his en- “chain-of-command” model. They rec- ablement to be restored to his original ognize, with Paul, that the husband’s creation purposes in Christ in the power primary responsibility is to love his wife of the Holy Spirit. sacrificially and selflessly (Eph 5:25). To deny this, explicitly or implicitly by call- 1 ing complementarians “hierarchicalists,” Though see the present author’s contribution, “Gen- hardly advances the debate, is not irenic der Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” WTJ 56 (1994): 259–83. and charitable as many egalitarian pro- 2 A brief word regarding the title: though doubtless ponents like to project their public image, intended as an allusion to the work’s major point of and involves a serious misrepresentation reference, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Re- and distortion of the complementarian covering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), the notion of “Discovering Bibli- view. cal Equality” makes one wonder if the contributors to One gets the impression that Dis- this volume “discovered” something in Scripture that covering Biblical Equality is written pri- is not really there (in the sense they claim it to be) in the first place—hence it was not “discovered” until marily, not to engage in serious exegetical recent years. See the essay by Robert W. Yarbrough debate with the other side, but to advance in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and the cause of the egalitarian movement H. Scott Baldwin, eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh and to gain adherents to one’s view, even Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) and his essay in the forthcoming second edi- if this is accomplished by mischaracteriz- tion of this work. 3 ing the opposing viewpoint. Personally, I I have addressed the hermeneutical fallacy inherent in do not think this end justifies the means, an arbitrary distinction between “paradigm passages” and “passages with limited application” in “Gender nor is the price paid worth the possible Passages in the NT,” 273–79. In this section I also deal gain. I certainly hope the political and with the problem of a “canon within a canon” and the propagandist nature of this book will perils of “content criticism” (Tendenzkritik) adopted by scholars such as I. H. Marshall or F. F. Bruce. This be sufficiently clear and transparent to pertains also to Nicole’s application of his principle 94 SPRING 2005

“fragmentary versus canonical interpretations” to 1 Tim 2:11–12 (“Biblical Hermeneutics,” 360). 4 Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Tes- tament Hermeneutics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991). 5 Referring also to Nicole’s principle of “peripheral vs. central doctrines,” on which see above. Fee interprets the term “head” (kephalē) entirely as conveying depen- dence for one’s ongoing life in the world, as wives were on their husbands “in this cultural setting.” However, this understanding of kephalē hardly does justice to texts such as Eph 1:21–22, which were already cited and discussed above. What is more, lexical evidence for the meaning “source” for kephalē is virtually entirely lacking (see Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions [Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004], 544-99). 6 See my “Gender Passages in the NT,” 267–71, esp. the chart on p. 268. 7 Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Is- rael,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 33–102, esp. 40–44, where Block contends that the term “patricentrism” better captures the essence of the father’s role in ancient Israel than “patriarchy.” See also Andreas J. Köstenberger with David W. Jones, God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 39–41.

95 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 96-120 “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy” (Ch 22) and “Gender Equality and Homosexuality” (Ch 23) by William J. Webb Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theology and Bible Phoenix Seminary Scottsdale, Arizona

Introduction chapters at points where they supplement How can Christians today know his earlier argument. which parts of the Bible are “culturally I published an extensive analysis and critique of Slaves, Women and Ho- relative” and which parts apply to all 2 believers in all cultures throughout his- mosexuals in June of 2004. Therefore, tory? just as Webb’s more recent chapters are William Webb argues for a new a summary of his longer book, so this approach to that question, an approach article will be a shorter summary of my he calls a “redemptive-movement her- earlier critique. But I have also added meneutic” (RMH). He summarizes this more interaction with Webb’s primary approach in his two chapters in Discover- claim in his 2004 chapter, the claim ing Biblical Equality, but a longer, fuller that the Bible’s commands about slavery statement of his position is found in his prove that we need to adopt his redemp- 2001 book, Slaves, Women and Homosexu- tive-movement hermeneutic. And I have 1 als. In both contributions he focused also added some interaction with Webb’s specifically on slavery, men’s and women’s fuller explanation of how he understands the New Testament to be “our final and roles, and homosexuality as examples that 3 illustrate his general approach toward definitive revelation” from God (395). discovering the ethical standards that First, it is appropriate to summarize Christians should follow today. Webb’s system, his “redemptive-move- Since Webb’s two chapters in Dis- ment hermeneutic.” Webb claims that covering Biblical Equality depend on and the ancient world in which the Bible summarize his work in Slaves, Women was written had gravely deficient moral and Homosexuals, I will focus most of my standards. God in his wisdom knew analysis on his longer book, while add- that it would be best to work gradu- ing additional interaction with his 2004 ally to lead his people from the moral 96 SPRING 2005

practices of the surrounding cultures to principle of sola Scriptura. much higher standards of moral conduct. At first glance, it may not seem Therefore in the Old Testament God as though Webb “nullifies” the moral gave moral commands that were a great authority of the entire New Testament, improvement over the standards of the because he agrees, for example, that ho- surrounding culture, but were not yet mosexual conduct is morally wrong and his highest ideal. Webb then argues that that the New Testament condemnations in the New Testament, God gave even of homosexual conduct are transcultural higher moral standards, making further (Slaves, Women and Homosexuals [hence- improvement over what was taught in forth SWH], 39–41, 250–52, and many the Old Testament. But even these New other places in the book). He also affirms Testament moral commands were not God’s that the New Testament admonitions for “ultimate ethic.” Our task today is to try children to be subject to their parents are to understand the direction in which transcultural (SWH, 212). Is Webb not God was gradually leading his people, so then affirming that some aspects of New that by observing that trajectory we can Testament ethics are transcultural? discover God’s “ultimate ethic” on various The important point to realize is topics, an “ultimate ethic” that we should the basis on which Webb affirms that seek to teach and obey today. these are transcultural commands. Most Webb’s approach has been em- evangelicals today read a text such as, braced by many egalitarians because of “Children, obey your parents in the his conclusions regarding roles for men Lord, for this is right” (Eph 6:1), and and women in the home and the church. conclude that children today are to obey However, we should note that Webb their parents because the New Testament differs with many egalitarians in his was written for Christians in the new understanding of what the New Testa- covenant age. Since we Christians today ment actually teaches for its own time. are also in the new covenant age (the In contrast to many earlier egalitarians period of time from Christ’s death until (who have argued that the New Testa- he returns), this command is binding on ment does not teach that wives should be us today. subject to their husbands, and that it does Most evangelicals today reason not teach that only men should be elders), similarly about the New Testament texts Webb believes that the New Testament concerning homosexual conduct (see, for does teach these things for the culture in example, Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9), and which the New Testament was written, but conclude that these are morally binding that in today’s culture the treatment of on us because these texts were written to women is an area in which “a better ethic new covenant Christians, and we today than the one expressed in the isolated words are also part of the new covenant. of the text is possible” (Slaves, Women and But for Webb, the process is entirely Homosexuals, 36, italics added). different, and the basis of authority is different. The commands concerning Analysis children and homosexuals are binding (1) Webb’s trajectory herme- on us today not because they were written neutic nullifies in principle the moral to new covenant Christians and we today authority of the entire New Testament are part of the new covenant (I could not and thus contradicts the Reformation find such a consideration anywhere in 97 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Webb’s book), but because these commands to the one found in the New Testament. have passed through the filtering system of Therefore, “honor the emperor” is applied 4 Webb’s eighteen criteria and have survived. to honoring the president or the prime Actually, the command concerning chil- minister. In fact, in several such cases dren has not entirely survived his filtering the immediate context contains pointers process. Webb believes that the com- to broader applications (such as 1 Pet mands for children to obey their parents 2:13–14, which mentions being subject actually teach that adult children should to “every human institution” including continue to be obedient to their parents the “emperor” and “governors” as specific throughout their adult lives, but that this examples). Unlike Webb, in making such aspect of the command was culturally adjustments we do not have to abandon relative and need not be followed by us any New Testament ethical standards 5 today (see SWH, 212). or say they are less than perfect. We just In this way, it is fair to say that obey them by applying them to a similar Webb’s system invalidates the moral but somewhat different situation. authority of the entire New Testament, But with Webb the situation is at least in the sense that we today should entirely different.He does not consider the be obedient to the moral commands that moral commands of the New Testament to were written to new covenant Chris- represent a perfect or final moral system tians. Instead, only those commands are for Christians. They are rather a pointer binding that have passed through his that “provides the direction toward the eighteen-part filter. divine destination, but its literal, isolated Someone may object, “Doesn’t ev- words are not always the destination eryone have to use some kind of cultural itself. Sometimes God’s instructions are filter? Doesn’t everyone have to test the simply designed to get his flock moving” New Testament commands to see if they (SWH, 60). are culturally relative or transcultural be- fore deciding whether to obey them?” (a) Webb’s X→Y→Z principle My response is that there is a fun- At the heart of Webb’s system is damental difference in approach. Most what he calls a “redemptive-movement evangelicals (including me) say that we hermeneutic.” Webb explains his herme- are under the moral authority of the New neutic by what he calls “the X→Y→Z Testament, and we are morally obligated principle.” The letter Y indicates what the to obey its commands when we are in the Bible says about a topic. Webb says, “The same situation as that addressed in the central position (Y) represents particular New Testament command (such as being words of the Bible at that stage of their a parent, a child, a person contemplating development of a subject” (SWH, 31; see a divorce, a church selecting elders or also Webb in Discovering Biblical Equality deacons, a church preparing to celebrate [henceforth DBE], 382-83). The letter X the Lord’s Supper, a husband, a wife, and represents “the perspective of the original so forth). When there is no exact modern culture,” and the letter Z represents “an equivalent to some aspect of a command ultimate ethic,” that is, God’s final ideal (such as, “honor the emperor” in 1 Pet that the Bible is moving toward. 2:17), then we are still obligated to obey Therefore in Webb’s system, what the command, but we do so by applying evangelicals have ordinarily understood it to situations that are essentially similar to be “the teaching of the Bible” on 98 SPRING 2005

particular subjects is in fact only a point against slavery from the moral teaching along the way (indicated by the letter of the Bible itself (see section 3 below Y) toward the development of a final or for more detail). Rather than saying ultimate ethic (Z). Webb says, that we needed a better ethic than the New Testament (as Webb does), they The X→Y→Z principle il- took the moral teachings of the Bible lustrates how aspects of the as definitive and argued that slavery was biblical texts were not written itself contrary to those New Testament to establish a utopian society moral standards. with complete justice and eq- Of course, someone may respond, uity. They were written within “But other Christians in the nineteenth a cultural framework with century used the Bible to support slavery.” limited, incremental moves Yes, they did, but they lost the argument. toward an ultimate ethic Many people have argued wrong things (SWH, 31; also DBE 383-84; from the Bible at many points in history, italics in original). but eventually the wrong arguments have been answered and defeated, and Therefore, Webb discovers a num- the vast majority of God’s people have ber of points where “our contemporary rejected those arguments. Why should culture” has a better ethic than what is we feel any obligation to believe these found in the words of the Bible. Our wrong arguments? By saying that the culture has a better ethic today “where it Bible endorses slavery, Webb is asking us happens to reflect a better social ethic— to accept the discredited arguments that one closer to an ultimate ethic (Z) than to failed to persuade the church in previous the ethic revealed in the isolated words centuries. He is asking us to believe that of the biblical text” (SWH, 31). the New Testament endorses a morally Webb’s approach to Scripture can evil system. He is asking us to adopt the also be seen in the way he deals with bibli- mistaken view of the Bible held by the cal texts regarding slavery. Most evangeli- losing side in the slavery debates. Surely cal interpreters today would say that the it is not necessary to accept Webb’s un- New Testament does not command or derstanding of the Bible’s teaching on encourage or endorse slavery, but rather slavery. (See further discussion of the tells Christians who were slaves how they Bible and slavery in section 3, below.) should conduct themselves within that Webb’s redemptive-movement her- situation, and also gives principles that meneutic approaches the slavery question would modify and ultimately lead to the by saying that the original culture (X) abolition of slavery (1 Cor 7:21–22; Gal approved of “slavery with many abuses” 3:28; Philem 16, 21; see further discus- (SWH, 37). Partially correcting that sion of slavery in section 3 below). By original culture, the Bible (Y) endorses contrast, Webb believes that the Bible “slavery with better conditions and fewer actually endorses slavery; however, it is abuses” (SWH, 37). However, Webb be- a kind of slavery with “better conditions lieves that on the issue of slavery “our and fewer abuses” (SWH, 37). culture is much closer to an ultimate ethic It is rather astonishing that Webb than it is to the unrealized ethic reflected shows no awareness at all of the centuries in the isolated words of the Bible” (SWH, of Christian commentators who argued 37). Today, the ethic of our culture, which 99 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

is superior to that of the Bible, has “slav- words to stop short of com- ery eliminated and working conditions pletely fulfilling such a spirit? often improved” (SWH, 37). Why did God not simply give At the end of the book, Webb us a clearly laid out blueprint recapitulates the results of his analysis for an ultimate-ethic utopia- regarding slavery: like society? How could a God of absolute justice not Scripture does not present give us a revelation concern- a “finalized ethic” in every ing absolute justice on every area of human relationship. page? (SWH, 57) . . . To stop where the Bible stops (with its isolated words) Webb’s answer to these questions is ultimately fails to reapply the to see this incomplete movement toward redemptive spirit of the text an ultimate ethic as a manifestation of as it spoke to the original God’s wisdom. In showing us that the audience. It fails to see that Bible was making progress against the further reformation is pos- surrounding culture, but not completely sible. . . . While Scripture correcting the surrounding culture, we had a positive influence in can see God’s pastoral wisdom (SWH, its time, we should take that 58), his pedagogical skill (SWH, 60), redemptive spirit and move his evangelistic care for people who to an even better, more fully- might not have heard the gospel if it realized ethic today (SWH, proclaimed an ultimate ethic (SWH, 247). 63), and other aspects of God’s wisdom (SWH, 64–66). Therefore, rather than saying that According to Webb’s system, then, the New Testament does not endorse or Christians can no longer simply go to command slavery, Webb believes that it the New Testament, read the moral does approve a system of slavery for the commands in one of Paul’s epistles, and people at the time at which it was writ- believe that they should obey them. Ac- ten. However, in its modifications and cording to Webb, that would be to use a regulations of slavery, the Bible starts us “static hermeneutic” that just reads the along a trajectory that would lead to the “isolated words of the text” and fails to ultimate abolition of slavery, though the understand “the spirit-movement com- New Testament never actually reaches ponent of meaning which significantly that point. transforms the application of texts for Webb asks why the Bible is this subsequent generations” (SWH, 34). way: Rather, we must realize that the New Testament teachings simply represent Why does God convey his one stage in a trajectory of movement message in a way that reflects toward an ultimate ethic. a less-than-ultimate ethic. . . The implications of this for Chris- that evidences an underlying tian morality are extremely serious. It redemptive spirit and some means that God’s moral commands to movement in a positive di- New Testament Christians were not rection, it often permits its morally perfect commands even in the 100 SPRING 2005

time they were written—they were just must ask, what change/im- transitional improvements on the sur- provement is the text making rounding culture. It means that Chris- in the lives of people in the tians who obeyed those commands and covenant community? And, thought they were living lives of holiness how does the text influence before God were not actually doing so, the larger ANE/GR world? because the commands did not represent Through reflecting upon a life of perfect righteousness. these social-setting questions Moreover, this system means that the modern reader will begin to our ultimate moral authority is no longer sense the redemptive spirit of the Bible but Webb’s system. Of course, the text. Also, a third setting he claims that the “redemptive spirit” that permits one another way of drives his hermeneutic for each area of discovering the redemptive ethics is derived from the biblical text, but spirit, namely, the canonical by his own admission this “redemptive movement across various spirit” is not the same as the teachings biblical epochs. (SWH, 53, of the Bible, but rather is derived from italics added). Webb’s analysis of the interaction be- tween the ancient culture and the biblical This paragraph is remarkable for text. Here is his key explanation: the candor with which it reveals the subjective and indeterminate nature of The final and most important Webb’s ethical system. If the heart of characteristic of a redemp- the “most important characteristic” of tive-movement hermeneutic his hermeneutic is discovered through is its focus on the spirit of a “reflecting upon” the way the Bible in- text…. The coinage “redemp- teracts with ancient Near Eastern and tive-movement hermeneutic” Greco-Roman cultures, and through is derived from a concern that such reflection the interpreter will “begin Christians apply the redemp- to sense the redemptive spirit of the text,” tive spirit within Scripture, we have entered a realm so subjective that not merely, or even primarily, no two interpreters in the future will be its isolated words. Finding likely to agree on where the “redemptive the underlying spirit of a text spirit of the text” that they are begin- is a delicate matter. It is not as ning to “sense” is leading, and what kind direct or explicit as reading the of “ultimate ethic” they should count as words on the page. In order God’s will for them. to grasp the spirit of a text, For example, people seeking justifi- the interpreter must listen for cation for their desire to obtain a divorce how the text sounds within its will “begin to sense the redemptive spirit” various social contexts. Two of more and more reasons for divorce, life settings are crucial: the moving from the one reason that Jesus broader, foreign ancient Near allowed (adultery in Matt 19:9), to the Eastern and Greco-Roman increasing freedom found in Paul, who (ANE/GR) social context allows a second ground for divorce (de- and the immediate, domestic sertion by an unbeliever in 1 Cor 7:15), Israelite/church setting. One along a trajectory toward many other 101 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

reasons for divorce as we move toward “ultimate ethic” to which the redemp- an “ultimate ethic” (Z) where everyone tive spirit of Scripture was leading was should be completely happy with his or worldwide authority given to the Pope, her spouse. cardinals, and bishops. And on and on it will go. Baptists The Reformation principle sola will “begin to sense the redemptive spirit” Scriptura was formulated to guard against of believer’s baptism as the New Testa- the kind of procedure Webb advocates, ment corrects the all-inclusive nature of because the Reformers knew that once the religions of the ancient world, and our authority becomes “Scripture plus paedobaptists will “begin to sense the some later developments” rather than redemptive spirit” of inclusion of infants “Scripture alone,” the unique govern- in the covenant community, as the New ing authority of Scripture in our lives Testament decisively corrects the neglect is lost. and abuse of children found in many Now Webb may object that these ancient cultures. hypothetical “redemptive spirit” findings In fact, this idea of following the could not be derived from a respon- movement of the “redemptive spirit” sible use of his eighteen criteria. On the in Scripture has troubling similarities other hand, I have lived in the academic to a Roman Catholic, not a Protestant, world for over thirty years, and I have a view of authority in the church. One great deal of confidence in the ability of of the distinctive differences between scholars to take a set of eighteen criteria historic, orthodox Protestants and the and make a case for almost anything Roman Catholic Church has been that they desire. But whether or not my hy- Protestants base doctrine on “Scripture pothetical suggestions are the result of a alone” (in Latin, sola Scriptura), while proper use of Webb’s criteria, the point Catholics base doctrine on Scripture plus remains: The standard is no longer what the the authoritative teaching of the church New Testament says, but rather the point through history. Webb’s redemptive- toward which some biblical scholar thinks movement hermeneutic is disturbingly the Bible was moving. And that is why I similar to Roman Catholicism in this believe that Webb’s redemptive-move- regard, because it places final authority ment hermeneutic nullifies in principle not in the New Testament writings but the moral authority of the entire New in later interpreters’ ideas of where that Testament. teaching was leading. On this basis a Roman Catholic could argue that more (b) Webb’s claim that the New reliable than anybody’s speculation on Testament is “our final and definitive where the teaching was leading are the revelation” historical facts of where the New Testa- In his essay “The Slavery Anal- ment teaching did lead. So the redemp- ogy” Webb affirms more clearly that he tive-movement hermeneutic would give believes that “the New Testament is our us the following picture (which actually final and definitive revelation” (DBE, was fulfilled in church history): (1) Jesus’ 395). But what is significant is what else teachings mention no local church of- he affirms when we read that sentence ficers or church governing structure; (2) in its entirety: Paul’s writings show increased authority given to elders and deacons; (3) the final While the New Testament 102 SPRING 2005

is our final and definitive Bible was heading. revelation and its underlying redemptive spirit contains an (2) Webb fails in many sections absolute ethic, the realization of his argument to recognize that of its redemptive movement Christians are no longer bound by old is incremental (as in the Old covenant laws, and thus he frequently Testament) and not a fully neglects to use the fundamental struc- realized ethic (DBE, 395). tural division of the entire Bible (the difference between the Old and New Webb does not say that the ethical Testaments) as a means of determin- commands we read in the New Testa- ing moral obligations for Christians ment are a morally perfect ethic from today. God. He says the New Testament’s “underlying redemptive spirit contains an (a) We should not go beyond the absolute ethic.” And for Webb the “un- moral teachings of the New Testa- derlying redemptive spirit” is not seen in ment. the actual moral commands of the New Although Webb occasionally gives Testament but in the direction they were attention to what he calls “canonical pointing, the direction we should move to movement” from the Old Testament to improve on those commands. So Webb the New in Slaves, Women and Homo- does not at all view the commands of the sexuals (see SWH, 77–78 for example), New Testament as the “final and defini- and although he gives somewhat more tive” moral standards we are to follow. attention to this development in “Slavery In what sense then can Webb say Analogy” (DBE, 390-94), for him such the New Testament is our final revelation? development is just additional evidence In the sense that its not-yet-perfect ethic that we should move beyond the New shows the way for further improvement, Testament even as the New Testament and shows that we need Webb’s system! developed beyond the Old. He sees In other words, the New Testament is the Old and New Testaments as just the final example of revelation from God two steps along the way toward further that shows itself not to be the final moral redemptive-movement in ethical devel- standard! This is certainly not the sense opment beyond the New Testament. He in which orthodox Christians have previ- says that the fact that “the New Testa- ously understood the New Testament to ment is still revelation from God within be God’s final revelation to us. a curse-laden and culturally distinct Webb’s system therefore constitutes world” indicates that we “should be less a direct denial of the Reformation prin- quick to pronounce the movement within ciple of sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the New Testament ‘absolute’ in all of its “the Bible alone” is the ultimate authority particulars rather than incremental like for what we are to believe and do, and the Old Testament” (DBE, 394). that its teachings constitute the norm Webb therefore does not think that to which all our beliefs and practices are the development from Old Testament to to conform. In Webb’s system the norm New Testament is the end, and that the is no longer the moral teachings of the New Testament itself provides the final Bible but what we can discover about the ethical standard for Christians in the new “ultimate ethic” (Z) toward which the covenant. His system fails adequately to 103 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

consider the fact that the moral standards ment within Scripture ends with the New of the Bible are not based on what God Testament! But Webb carries it beyond the thought might be a temporary, partial New Testament. step toward holiness for people within In doing this Webb fails to recog- any given culture, but are based on God’s nize the centrality of Jesus Christ for all unchanging moral purity, to which he of history. Yes, there is movement and calls us to conform: “You shall be holy, development beyond the Old Testament, for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16). “You there- because in the Old Testament “at many fore must be perfect, as your heavenly times and in many ways, God spoke to Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). The moral our fathers by the prophets.” By contrast, commands of the Bible do not need “in these last days he has spoken to us by improvement. They reflect the absolute his Son, whom he appointed the heir of 6 moral holiness of God himself. all things, through whom also he created Webb fails to understand what it the world” (Heb 1:1-2). In the writings means to be members of a covenant, of the New Testament we have a written particularly the new covenant in Christ. record of the revelation that God gave us Christians today are members of the new in Christ and the revelation that Christ covenant. Just as every covenant in the gave to his apostles. We are not to look ancient world had specific conditions for doctrinal or ethical development be- telling how the parties of the covenant yond the teachings and commands of the were to act, so the New Testament has New Testament, for that would be to look moral commands specifying how we are for development beyond the supreme to act in fellowship with God and with revelation of God in his Son. Jesus Christ, the mediator of that new Yes, the New Testament explicitly covenant (Heb 9:15). The moral com- tells us that we are no longer under the mands of the New Testament are the regulations of the old covenant (Heb behavioral requirements placed on us as 8:6–13), so we have clear warrant for say- members of that covenant. When Webb ing the sacrificial laws and dietary laws tells us that we do not have to obey some are no longer binding on us. And we do of the moral commands of the New see the apostles in a process of coming to Testament, he is telling us not to obey understand the inclusion of the Gentiles the written commands of God which he in the church (Acts 15; Gal 2:1–14; 3:28). included in the documents that define But that process was completed within the the new covenant. In other words, he is New Testament, and the commands given telling us to disobey the new covenant. to Christians in the New Testament say It is difficult to overstate the seriousness nothing about excluding Gentiles from of this claim. the church! We do not have to progress When Webb claims that “a re- on a “trajectory” beyond the New Testa- demptive-movement hermeneutic has ment to discover that. always been a major part of the historic Christians living in the time of church, apostolic and beyond” (SWH, 35), Paul’s epistles were living under the new and therefore that all Christians believe covenant. And Christians today are also in some kind of “redemptive-movement” living under the new covenant. This is hermeneutic, he fails to make one im- “the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor portant distinction: Evangelicals have 11:25), which Jesus established and always held that the redemptive move- which we affirm every time we take the 104 SPRING 2005

Lord’s Supper. That means that we are guide for hermeneutics. living today in the same period in God’s plan for “the history of redemption” as the (3) Webb repeatedly confuses first-century Christians. And that is why events with commands, and fails to we can read and directly apply the New recognize that what the Bible reports as Testament today. a background situation (such as slavery To attempt to go beyond the New or monarchy, for example) it does not Testament documents and derive our au- necessarily approve or command. thority from “where the New Testament Again and again in his analysis was heading” is to reject the very docu- Webb assumes that “the Bible” (in Webb’s ments that God gave us to govern our undifferentiated form, lumping Old and life under the new covenant until Christ New Testament verses together) sup- returns. It is to reject the Reformation ports things such as slavery (see SWH, doctrine of sola Scriptura and establish 33, 36–37, 84, 106, 186, 202–03). He also an entirely new basis of authority distinct uses monarchy as an example, assuming from the Bible itself. that the Bible presents monarchy as a favored form of government, one that (b) Webb repeatedly fails to con- people should approve or even say that sider that we are no longer under the the Bible requires (see, for example, SWH, Mosaic Covenant. 107, 186, 203). When Webb repeatedly gives long With respect to slavery, therefore, lists of Mosaic laws on slavery or wives, Webb says that and then says it would be foolish to obey what “the Bible” says on these subjects a static hermeneutic [this is today, unsuspecting readers may think Webb’s term for the herme- that he has built a persuasive case for neutic used by everyone who his eighteen criteria. But he has not, be- does not use his redemptive- cause the change from old covenant to movement hermeneutic] new covenant means that those dozens would apply this slavery- of Mosaic laws are not part of what “the refuge text by permitting Bible” requires of Christians today. We the ownership of slaves today, 7 are not under the Mosaic law. provided that the church Yet this fundamental omission is offers similar kinds of ref- pervasive in Webb’s book. If someone uge for runaway slaves. . . were to go through his book and remove . Christians would dare not all the examples he takes from the Old speak out against slavery. They Testament to claim that we cannot obey would support the institution “the Bible” today, and all the implications of slavery (SWH, 33, italics that he draws from those examples, we added). would be left not with a book but with a small pamphlet. What is rather astonishing is that Webb’s failure adequately to take the only alternative that Webb acknowl- into account the fact that Christians are edges to his position is what he calls a no longer bound by Mosaic covenant leg- “static hermeneutic.” But then he affirms islation is an omission of such magnitude that such a “static hermeneutic” would as to nullify the value of this book as a have to support slavery: 105 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Even more tragic is that, in arguing argued strongly against American slavery for or in permitting biblical slavery today, even from Old Testament passages such a static hermeneutic takes our current as Exod 21:16, “He that stealeth a man standard of human rights and work- and selleth him, or if he be found in his ing conditions backwards by quantum hand, he shall surely be put to death” leaps. We would shame a gospel that (KJV) (13-15), as well as from the fact proclaims freedom to the captive. . . . A that men are in the image of God and static hermeneutic would not condemn therefore it is morally wrong to treat any biblical-type slavery if that social order human being as property (8-9, 15-17). were to reappear in society today (SWH, He argued that ownership of another 34, 36). person breaks the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” as follows: (a) Opposing slavery without adopting Webb’s system. The eighth commandment In his eyes there are only two forbids the taking of any part choices: do you support Webb’s system or of that which belongs to an- do you support slavery? Which will it be? other. Slavery takes the whole. He appears oblivious to the historical fact Does the same Bible which that for centuries many Christians have prohibits the taking of any opposed slavery from the text of Scripture thing from him, sanction the itself, without using Webb’s new system taking of every thing? Does of interpretation, and without rejecting it thunder wrath against the the final moral authority of the New man who robs his neighbor Testament. To say we have to choose of a cent, yet commission between Webb’s system and slavery is him to rob his neighbor of historically unfounded, is biblically un- himself? Slaveholding is the true, and is astonishing in its failure to highest possible violation of recognize other alternatives. the eighth commandment In actual historical fact, the Bible (10-11). was used by more Christians to oppose slavery than to defend it, and eventu- But Webb shows no knowledge of ally their arguments won, and slavery such historical argumentation. He makes was abolished. But the fundamental absolute claims that are simply incorrect, difference from Webb is that the evan- such as these: gelical, Bible-believing Christians who ultimately brought about the abolition Unless one embraces the re- of slavery did not advocate modifying or demptive spirit of Scripture, nullifying any biblical teaching, or moving there is no biblically based “beyond” the New Testament to a better rationale for championing an ethic. They taught the abolition of slavery abolitionist perspective (DBE, from the Bible itself. 395, italics added). Webb shows no awareness of bibli- cal anti-slavery arguments such as those He also says “a redemptive-move- of Theodore Weld in The Bible Against ment hermeneutic applied to the New 8 Slavery, a book which was widely dis- Testament” is “the only valid way to arrive tributed and frequently reprinted. Weld at the abolition of slavery” (DBE, 395). 106 SPRING 2005

But Theodore Weld championed the themselves in a situation where their abolition of slavery even from the moral property is taken through persecution, commands of the Old Testament! Webb they should still rejoice because of their says his system is “the only valid way” to heavenly treasure, which cannot be sto- arrive at the abolition of slavery, but in len. Similarly, when the Bible tells slaves historical fact the Christians who actu- to be submissive to their masters, it does ally succeeded in abolishing slavery did not mean that the Bible supports or not use Webb’s redemptive-movement commands slavery, but only that it tells hermeneutic or suggest that we had to people who are in a situation of slavery replace the New Testament’s moral com- how they should respond. mands with something better. When we couple Paul’s teachings in The New Testament never com- 1 Cor 7:21, his condemnation of “enslav- manded slavery, but gave principles that ers” in 1 Tim 1:10, and his directions to regulated it and ultimately led to its Philemon, with the realization that every abolition. Paul says to slaves, “If you can human being is created in the image of gain your freedom, avail yourself of the God (see Gen 1:27; 9:6; Jas 3:9; see also opportunity” (1 Cor 7:21). And he tells Job 31:15; Gal 3:28), and the teaching Philemon, regarding his slave Onesimus, that whatever we do for the least of that he should welcome him back “no Christ’s brothers we do for him (Matt longer as a slave but more than a slave, as 25:40), we then see that the Bible, and a beloved brother” (Phlm 16), and that he especially the New Testament, contains should “receive him as you would receive powerful principles that would lead to an me” (v. 17), and that he should forgive abolition of slavery. The New Testament anything that Onesimus owed him, or at never commands people to practice slav- least that Paul would pay it himself (vv. ery or to own slaves, but rather gives prin- 18–19). Finally he says, “Confident of ciples that would lead to the overthrow your obedience, I write to you, knowing of that institution, and also regulates it that you will do even more than I say” (v. while it is in existence by statements 21). This is a strong and not very subtle such as, “Masters, treat your slaves justly hint that Philemon should grant free- and fairly, knowing that you also have a 10 dom to Onesimus. Paul’s condemnation master in heaven” (Col 4:1). 9 of “enslavers” (1 Tim 1:10, ESV) also J. B. Lightfoot in 1879 summarized showed the moral wrong of forcibly put- the way the New Testament did not im- ting anyone into slavery. mediately prohibit slavery but surely led The Bible does not approve or com- to its demise: mand slavery any more than it approves or commands persecution of Christians. [Paul tells Philemon] to do When the author of Hebrews commends very much more than eman- his readers by saying, “You joyfully ac- cipate his slave, but this one cepted the plundering of your property, thing he does not directly since you knew that you yourselves had enjoin. St. Paul’s treatment of a better possession and an abiding one” this individual case is an apt (Heb 10:34), that does not mean the illustration of the attitude of Bible supports the plundering of Chris- Christianity towards slavery tians’ property, or that it commands theft! in general. . . . a principle is It only means that if Christians find boldly enunciated, which 107 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

must in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel St. Augustine (354-430) saw taught that God had made slavery as the product of sin all men and women upon and as contrary to God’s earth of one family; that all divine plan (The City of God alike were His sons and His 19.15). St. Chysostom, in daughters; that, whatever the fourth century preached conventional distinctions that when Christ came he human society might set annulled slavery. . . . Slavery up, the supreme King of was also condemned in the Heaven refused to acknowl- fifth century by St. Patrick in edge any; that the slave not- Ireland. For several centuries withstanding his slavery was bishops and councils rec- Christ’s freedman, and the ommended the redemption free notwithstanding his lib- of captive slaves … by the erty was Christ’s slave; when fourteenth century slavery the Church carried out this was almost unknown on the principle by admitting the Continent. . . . slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side by . . . although slavery in Amer- side with his master at the ica was condoned and de- same holy table; when in fended by many who were short the Apostolic precept members of Christian de- that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither nominations, there were also bond nor free’ was not only strong countervailing voices recognized but acted upon, of prominent Christian lead- then slavery was doomed. ers who came to be known Henceforward it was only a as abolitionists. . . . the aboli- 11 question of time. tionist movement had a con- siderably higher percentage Lightfoot is not using something of Christian clergy than did 12 like Webb’s redemptive-movement her- the pro-slavery defenders. meneutic to seek a better ethic than the New Testament; he is using the New Schmidt tells of many prominent Testament ethic itself, as God’s perfect abolitionist leaders in England and the revelation of his will, to argue for the U.S. who believed the Bible and were abolition of slavery. motivated by its teachings in their zeal And so it has been throughout to abolish slavery, among them William the history of the church. Christians have Wilberforce in England, and in the argued not from some “ultimate ethic” United States Elijah Lovejoy, Edward beyond the New Testament but from the Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author moral teachings of the New Testament as of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Torrey they worked for the abolition of slavery. (founder of the Underground Railroad), Two recent studies have shown this and William Lloyd Garrison (publisher in more detail. Alvin A. Schmidt notes of the influential periodical The Libera- 13 the following: tor). 108 SPRING 2005

In a significant recent study, Bay- church and its opposition to slavery. His lor University professor Rodney Stark statement is not correct, and his argu- traces the dominant Christian leadership ment fails to be persuasive. in abolitionist movements in both the But this claim about slavery is basic United States and England, noting that to Webb’s entire argument. Webb’s mis- in the United States 52 percent of the taken evaluation of the Bible’s teaching traveling agents of the American Anti- on slavery forms a fundamental building Slavery Society were ordained clergy, as block in constructing his hermeneutic. 14 were 75 percent of its local agents. He Once we remove his claim that the Bible says that “as abolition sentiments spread, condones slavery, Webb’s Exhibit A is it was primarily the churches (often lo- gone, and he has lost his primary means cal congregations), not secular clubs and of supporting the claim that we need his organizations, that issued formal state- “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” 15 ments on behalf of ending slavery.” He to move beyond the ethic of the Bible adds, “The abolitionists, whether popes itself. or evangelists, spoke almost exclusively in the language of Christian faith. And (b) Making sense of New Testa- although many Southern clergy proposed ment texts on women without adopting theological defenses of slavery, pro-slav- Webb’s system. ery rhetoric was overwhelmingly secular Webb claims four examples of New —references were made to ‘liberty’ and Testament texts regarding women that, 16 ‘states’ rights,’ not to ‘sin’ or ‘salvation.’” he says, we need not (and should not) And in England, “Those who brought obey today. He claims we should follow about abolition in Britain quoted not instead a better ethic, one that senses the 17 ‘liberal principles’ but the Bible.” “redemptive-movement spirit” (DBE, What is significant about these 395) in the text and follows its direction anti-slavery movements is that they did to move beyond the commands of the not adopt William Webb’s redemptive- New Testament. His four examples are movement hermeneutic. They did not see (1) the requirement for head coverings any need to abandon the moral teachings on women in worship (1 Cor 11); (2) the of the New Testament and seek some requirement for women to be silent in “ultimate ethic” that improved on the congregational gatherings (1 Cor 14:34- ethic of the Bible. They argued from the 36); (3) the instruction for wives to call moral standards found in the Bible itself, their husbands “lord” (1 Pet 3:5-6); and and they won the arguments again and (4) the instruction for wives to “submit” again in the minds of the vast majority to their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18). of Christians. What is remarkable, even astonish- Therefore, when Webb defends his ing, is that as we read Webb’s discussion redemptive-movement hermeneutic as we see no awareness whatsoever of the necessary for arguing against slavery, and fact that responsible interpreters have when he says, “Unless one embraces the not understood his first three examples redemptive spirit of Scripture, there is no to require what he claims. For example, I biblically based rationale for champion- know of no responsible evangelical schol- ing an abolitionist perspective” (DBE, ar today who argues that women should 395), his statement is made in ignorance be completely silent in congregational of the actual history of the Christian gatherings or that women should call 109 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

their husbands “lord.” They do not agree (4) Webb creates an overly com- with Webb that we should move beyond plex system of interpretation that will the New Testament commands to a require a class of “priests” who have to better ethic, but they claim that careful, interpret the Bible for us in the light of responsible exegesis of those texts shows ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Ro- that the New Testament did not require man culture. complete silence of women in church Although Webb does not explain even in the first century, and did not tell his redemptive-movement hermeneutic wives to call their husbands “lord” even at length in his essay “The Slavery Anal- in the first century. That was not what 1 ogy” in Discovering Biblical Equality, it Corinthians 11 and 1 Peter 3 meant even is important for readers to understand at the time they were written. the complexity of his system as found in In a similar way, though there has Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, and what historically been some difference among it actually requires us to do before we interpreters, many evangelical commen- can determine the moral standards that tators have understood the commands Christians should follow today. At the about head coverings to reflect a custom heart of Webb’s system is his requirement in first century society in which head that the interpreter “must listen for how covering was an outward symbol either the text sounds within its various social of being married or of being a woman in contexts,” especially “the broader, foreign distinction from a man. Therefore, they ancient Near-Eastern and Greco-Ro- have argued, in a society where head cov- man (ANE/GR) social context and the ering does not convey that same meaning, immediate, domestic Israelite/church the instruction is best obeyed by adopting setting” (SWH, 53). a different outward symbol that conveys How does one do this? Webb a similar meaning (such as a wedding gives eighteen criteria which one must 18 ring as a sign of being married). (For use in order to carry out his redemp- further discussion of how to determine tive-movement hermeneutics properly. which New Testament commands are His first criterion is called “preliminary culturally relative, see the final section movement,” and here is how he says it of this article.) should happen: So Webb’s argument about Bible texts on women is similar to his argument Assessing redemptive-move- about texts on slavery: He argues not ment has its complications. against responsible evangelical scholars Without going into an elabo- and their exegesis of these texts, but rate explanation, I will simply against a straw man of his own construc- suggest a number of guide- tion. When Webb assumes as true inter- lines: (1) the ANE/GR real pretations of the New Testament that no world must be examined responsible interpreter today supports, along with its legal world, (2) and when he completely ignores other the biblical subject on the interpretations that are widely held in the whole must be examined along scholarly literature, it does not increase with its parts, (3) the biblical our confidence that he has adequately text must be compared to a considered his theory in comparison to number of other ANE/GR other valid alternatives. cultures which themselves 110 SPRING 2005

must be compared with each simple, only to require that all believers other and (4) any portrait of throughout all history should first filter movement must be composed these commands through a complex sys- of broad input from all three tem of eighteen criteria before they can streams of assessment—for- know whether to obey them or not. That eign, domestic, and canonical is not the kind of Bible that God gave us, (SWH, 82). nor is there any indication in Scripture itself that believers have to have some And this is just his procedure for kind of specialized academic knowledge the first of eighteen criteria! Who will be and elaborate hermeneutical system be- able to do this? Who knows the history fore they can be sure that these are the of ancient cultures well enough to make things God requires of his children. these assessments? If the evangelical world begins to (5) Webb fails to demonstrate that adopt Webb’s system, it is not hard to New Testament teachings on men and imagine that we will soon require a new women are culturally relative. class of “priests,” those erudite scholars Throughout Webb’s book he at- with sufficient expertise in the ancient tempts to dismantle the complementar- world that they can give us reliable con- ian arguments for male leadership in the clusions about what kind of “ultimate home and the church by claiming that ethic” we should follow today. the biblical texts on male leadership are But this will create another prob- culturally relative. Yet in each case, his lem, one I have observed often as I have attempts to demonstrate cultural relativ- lived and taught in the academic world: ity are not persuasive. In the following Scholars with such specialized knowledge of- section, I consider a few of Webb’s claims ten disagree. Anyone familiar with the de- for culturally relativity in the order they bates over rabbinic views of justification occur in his book. in the last two decades will realize how difficult it can be to understand exactly (a) Webb fails to show that New what was believed in an ancient culture Testament commands regarding male on even one narrow topic, to say nothing headship are only a “preliminary move- of the whole range of ethical commands ment” and that the New Testament that we find in the New Testament. ethic needs further improvement. Where then will Webb’s system Webb claims that the commands lead us? It will lead us to massive inability regarding wives submitting to their to know with confidence anything that God husbands in Eph 5:22–33 are not a final requires of us. The more scholars who ethic that we should follow today, but are become involved with telling us “how simply an indication of “where Scripture the Bible was moving” with respect to is moving on the issue of patriarchal this or that aspect of ancient culture, the power” (SWH, 80–81). But this claim is more opinions we will have, and the more not persuasive because it depends on his despair people will feel about ever being assumption that the ethical standards able to know what God’s requires of us, of the New Testament are not God’s what his “ultimate ethic” is. ultimate ethical standards for us, but are I do not believe that God gave us simply one step along the way toward a Bible that is so direct and clear and an “ultimate ethic” that we should adopt 111 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

today (SWH, 36–39). tural component within Scripture” (SWH, 154–55; he makes a related argument in (b) Webb fails to show that Gal DBE, 411). Webb explains that this is 3:28 is a “seed idea” that would ulti- because an egalitarian position regarding mately lead to the abolition of male marriage or the church was simply not an headship once cultural changes made option, given the surrounding culture. it possible to adopt a superior ethic to But this criterion is not persuasive. that of the New Testament. The New Testament teaches many things Once again, Webb’s conception of that were not found in the surrounding a “seed idea” is based on his claim that culture. No people in the surrounding some New Testament commands are in- culture believed in Jesus as the Messiah consistent with that seed idea, and those before he came. Even Webb admits that commands show only that “the biblical the idea that husbands should love their author pushed society as far as it could go wives as Christ loved the church was rev- at that time without creating more dam- olutionary for the culture. The idea that age than good” (SWH, 73). Webb claims there could be a church made up of Jews that the “seed idea” is simply a pointer and Gentiles fellowshipping together was showing that there should be “further not an option in the surrounding culture. movement” toward a “more fully realized If Jesus and the apostles had wanted to ethic” that is “more just, more equitable teach egalitarianism, they would have and more loving. . . . a better ethic than done so, whether or not it was found in the one expressed in the isolated words the current culture. of the text” (SWH, 36). Webb’s other response to Ephe- Galatians 3:28 should not be seen sians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 is to say as a “seed idea” pointing to some future that if Paul had been addressing a differ- “higher ethic” but as a text that is fully ent culture he would have commanded consistent with other things the apostle something different: Paul and other New Testament authors wrote about the relationships between If Paul had been addressing men and women. If we take the entire an egalitarian culture, he New Testament as the very words of God may have used the very same for us in the new covenant today, then any christological analogy (with claim that Gal 3:28 should overrule other its transcultural component) texts, such as Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy and reapplied it to an egali- 2, should be seen as a claim that Paul the tarian relationship between apostle contradicts himself, and therefore husband and wife. He would that the word of God contradicts itself. simply have encouraged both the husband and the wife to (c) Webb fails to show that the sacrificially love one another Bible adopted male leadership because (SWH, 188–89). there were no competing options. Webb says, “It is reasonably safe to This amazing statement reveals how assume, therefore, that the social reality of deeply committed Webb is to finding an the biblical writers was the world of pa- egalitarian ethic that is “better than” the triarchy. . . . This consideration increases ethic taught in the New Testament. Even the likelihood of patriarchy being a cul- though he admits that Paul did not teach 112 SPRING 2005

an egalitarian view of marriage, he says speculative, and there is no indication that Paul would have taught an egalitarian that the biblical authors are taking these view of marriage had he been addressing factors into account when they give these a different culture, such as our egalitarian commands. Moreover, these New Testa- culture today! Webb is not at all bound by ment commands apply to all wives, even what Paul taught, but here as elsewhere those who were more intelligent than feels free to use his speculation on what their husbands, or the same age as their Paul “might have” taught in a different husbands, or physically as strong as their situation as a higher moral authority than husbands, or had as much social exposure what Paul actually did teach. and social rank as their husbands, or as much wealth as their husbands. Webb’s (d) Webb fails to show that wives reasons are simply not the reasons the were to be subject to their husbands Bible uses. only because they were younger and In short, Webb says that the Bible less educated. teaches a wife’s submission because of Webb says that it made sense for Webb’s own invented reasons. Then he re- wives to submit to their husbands in an moves these invented reasons for today’s ancient culture because they had less culture and concludes that we can count education, less social exposure, less physi- the command as culturally relative. It is cal strength, and they were significantly far better to heed the reasons the Bible younger than their husbands (SWH, actually gives, and to believe that these 213–14; also DBE, 411). But these rea- are the reasons that the Bible commands sons, says Webb, no longer apply today, wives to be subject to husbands. and therefore the command for wives to be subject to their husbands should be (6) The difficult passages for de- seen as culturally relative. A wife today termining cultural relativity are few, should just give some kind of “honor” and and most evangelicals have already “respect” to her husband (SWH, 215). reached a satisfactory conclusion about Webb’s argument here is not per- them. suasive, however, because these are not Webb has made the question of the reasons the Bible gives for wives to be determining when something is “cultur- subject to their husbands. The reasons the ally relative” into a much bigger problem Bible gives are the parallel with Christ’s than it actually is. The main question is relationship to the church (Eph 5:22–24) not whether the historical sections of the and the parallel with the relationship be- Bible report events that occurred in an tween the Father and Son in the Trinity ancient culture, because the Bible is a (1 Cor 11:3). Another reason that Paul historical book and it reports thousands gives is that this is what “is fitting in the of events that occurred at a time and Lord” (Col 3:18). Yet another reason is in a culture significantly different from that it is part of “what is good” (Titus our own. The question rather is how we 2:3–4), and another reason is that unbe- should approach the moral commands lieving husbands may be “won without found in the New Testament. Are those a word by the conduct of their wives” (1 commands to be obeyed by us today as Pet 3:1). well? Webb’s reasons concerning educa- Although my comments in this tion, age, and social status are merely section are prompted by Webb’s book, 113 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

they are applicable more broadly to the clothing that symbolized something general question of how we can know about a woman’s status or role (most what parts of the New Testament are likely that she was a married woman, culturally relative and what parts are still or possibly that she was a woman and binding on us today. not a man; others have proposed other The question of which New Testa- interpretations, but all of them are an ment commands are culturally relative is attempt to explain what the head cover- really not a very complicated question. ing symbolized). As Paul understands It is not nearly as complicated as Webb long hair for a man in 1 Cor 11:14, it is makes it out to be. The commands that a “disgrace for him,” because it is some- are culturally relative are primarily—or thing that was distinctive to women (in exclusively—those that concern physi- that culture at least), and therefore it was cal actions that carry symbolic meaning. a physical symbol of a man being like a When we look at the commands in the woman rather than like a man. New Testament, I think there are only For these first four examples, one six main examples of texts about which can still find a few examples of Christians people wonder if they are transcultural who argue that we should follow those or if they are culturally relative: commands literally today, and that they are still applicable to us. But the vast (1) Holy kiss (Rom 16:16; majority of evangelicals, at least in the 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 United States (I cannot speak for the rest Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14) of the world), have not needed Webb’s (2) Foot washing (John 13:14; “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” to compare 1 Tim 5:10, which is reach the conclusion that the Bible does not a command) not intend us to follow those commands (3) Head covering for women literally today. That is because they are or wives in worship (1 Cor not in themselves fundamental, deep-level 11:4–16) actions that have to do with essential (4) Short hair for men (1 Cor components of our relationships to one 11:14) another (such as loving one another, (5) No jewelry or braided honesty with one another, submission hair for women (1 Tim 2:9; to rightful authority, speaking the truth 1 Pet 3:3) and not lying about others, not commit- (6) Lifting hands in prayer (1 ting adultery or murder or theft, and so Tim 2:8) forth). Rather they are outward, surface- level manifestations of the deeper realities The first thing that we notice about that we should demonstrate today (such this list is that all of these examples refer to as greeting one another in love, or serv- physical items or actions that carry symbolic ing one another, or avoiding dressing meaning. The holy kiss was a physical in such a way as to give a signal that a expression that conveyed the idea of a man is trying to be a woman, or that a welcoming greeting. Foot washing (in the woman is trying to be a man). Therefore way that Jesus modeled it in John 13) was the vast majority of evangelicals are not a physical action that symbolized taking a troubled by these four “culturally rela- servant-like attitude toward one another. tive” commands in the New Testament Head covering was a physical piece of because they have concluded that only the 114 SPRING 2005

physical, surface manifestation is culturally ESV, which is very literal at this point, relative, and the underlying intent of the translates the passage as follows: command is not culturally relative but is still binding on us today. Do not let your adorning be In seeing these outward manifesta- external—the braiding of tions as culturally relative (long before hair, the wearing of gold, or Webb’s book was written), evangelicals the putting on of clothing—but have not adopted Webb’s viewpoint let your adorning be the hid- that we need to move to a “better ethic” den person of the heart with than that found in the New Testament the imperishable beauty of a commands. Evangelicals who take the gentle and quiet spirit, which Bible as the very words of God, and who in God’s sight is very precious believe that God’s moral commands for (1 Pet 3:3–4). his people are good and just and perfect, do not see these commands as part of If this passage forbids braiding of a deficient moral system that is just a hair and wearing of gold, then it must “pointer” to a higher ethic. They see these also forbid “the putting on of clothing”! commands as a part of the entire New But surely Peter was not telling women Testament ethic that they even today they should wear no clothes to church! must submit to and obey. He was rather saying that those external For most people in the evangelical things should not be what they look world, deciding that a holy kiss is a greet- to for their “adorning,” for their source ing that could be manifested in another of attractiveness and beauty to others. way is not a terribly difficult decision. It is It should rather be the inner character 19 something that comes almost intuitively qualities which he mentions. Therefore as people realize that there are of course I do not think that the statements about different forms of greetings among dif- jewelry and braided hair for women, ferent cultures. when rightly understood, are “culturally The last two items on the list need relative” commands, but they have direct 20 to be treated a bit differently. When we application to women today as well. rightly interpret the texts about jewelry Finally, should men be “lifting and braided hair for women, I do not holy hands” in prayer today? Person- think that they prohibited such things ally, I lean toward thinking that this even at the time they were written. Paul may be something that is transcultural says that “women should adorn themselves and that we should consider restoring in respectable apparel, with modesty to our practice of prayer (and praise) in and self control, not with braided hair evangelical circles today. (I realize that and gold or pearls or costly attire” (1 many Christians already do this in wor- Tim 2:9). Paul is not saying that women ship.) On the other hand, since this is should never wear such things. He is say- an outward, physical action (and thus ing that those things should not be the some may think that it falls in the same things that they consider the source of category as a holy kiss or the washing of their beauty. That is not how they should feet), I can understand that others would “adorn themselves.” conclude that this is simply a variable This sense of the prohibition be- cultural outward expression of a physical comes even more clear in 1 Pet 3:3. The expression of an inward heart attitude 115 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

toward God and dependence on him and a better ethic in today’s society. focus on him in our prayers. It seems to The following list gives some kinds me that there is room for Christians to of commands in the Bible that Christians differ on this question, but in any case do not have to obey in any literal or direct it certainly is not a complicated enough sense today (a fact which is evident apart question that it requires Webb’s entire from Webb’s “redemptive-movement “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” to hermeneutic”): encourage us to move beyond the ethic of the commands that we find in the New (1) The details of the Mosaic Testament. law code, which were written Is it really that simple? Are the for people under the Mosaic 22 only matters in dispute about cultural covenant. relativity just these simple physical items (2) Pre-Pentecost commands or actions, all of which carry symbolic for situations unique to Jesus’ meaning? Perhaps I have missed one or earthly ministry (such as “go 21 two other examples, but I suspect it nowhere among the Gentiles” really is that simple. I believe God has in Matt 10:5). given us a Bible that he intends believers (3) Commands that apply generally to be able to understand (what only to people in the same has traditionally been called the clarity or life situation as the original the perspicuity of Scripture). Surely the command (such as “bring the question is not as complex and confusing cloak. . . . and above all the as Webb’s book portrays it. parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13, At this point someone may object, and also “no longer drink only what about all those other passages that water” in 1 Tim 5:23). I would Webb lists at the beginning of his book also put in this category Acts (SWH, 14–15), passages which we found 15:29, which is a command so difficult to classify regarding the ques- for people in a situation of tion of cultural relativity? Jewish evangelism in the first My response to that is that there century: “That you abstain are other widely-accepted principles of from what has been sacrificed biblical interpretation that explain why to idols, and from blood, and many other commands in the Bible are from what has been stran- not binding today. These principles of gled” (note that Paul himself interpretation, however, are far different explicitly allows the eating of from Webb’s principles, because they foods sacrificed to idols in 1 argue that certain commands are not Corinthians 10). binding on Christians today because of (4) Everyone agrees that there theological convictions about the nature of are some passages, especially the Bible and its history, not because of in Jesus’ earthly teaching, that cultural analysis or because of convic- are difficult to understand tions about cultural relativity, and surely in terms of how broadly we not because of any conviction that the should apply them. Passages New Testament commands were simply like, “Do not refuse the one representative of a transitional ethic be- who would borrow from yond which we need to move as we find you” (Matt 5:42) must be 116 SPRING 2005

interpreted in the light of the of miracles, and concerning whole of Scripture, includ- God’s purpose for miracles at ing passages that command various points in the history us to be wise and to be good of redemption. stewards of what God has entrusted to us. But these are After we have made these qualifica- not questions of cultural rela- tions, how much of the New Testament is tivity, nor do these difficult left? Vast portions of the New Testament passages cause us to think are still easily and directly applicable to that we must move beyond our lives as Christians today, and many Jesus’ teaching to some kind other passages are applicable with only of higher and better ethic. minor changes to modern equivalents. We agree that we are to be As I was preparing to write this subject to this teaching and to analysis of Webb’s book, I read quickly obey it, and we earnestly seek through the New Testament epistles, and to know exactly how Jesus I was amazed how few of the commands intends us to obey it. found in the epistles raise any question (5) There are differences at all about cultural relativity. (I encour- among Christians today on age readers to try the same exercise for how much we should try to themselves.) follow commands regarding Where it is necessary to transfer a the miraculous work of the command to a modern equivalent, this is Holy Spirit such as, “Heal the generally not difficult because there are sick, raise the dead, cleanse sufficient similarities between the ancient lepers, cast out demons” situation and the modern situation, and (Matt 10:8). Some Chris- Christian readers generally see the con- tians think we should obey nection quite readily. It is not difficult to those commands directly, and move from “the wages of the laborers who they seek to do exactly what mowed your fields, which you kept back Jesus commanded. Other by fraud” ( Jas 5:4) to “the wages of the Christians believe that these employees who work in your factory, which commands were given only you kept back by fraud.” It is not difficult for that specific time in God’s to move from “honor the emperor” (1 Pet sovereign work in the his- 2:17) to “honor government officials who tory of redemption. But the are set in authority over you.” It is not important point here is that difficult to move from “Masters, treat these differences aretheologi - your slaves justly and fairly” to “Employ- cal. This is not a dispute over ers, treat your employees justly and fairly.” whether certain commands It is not difficult to move fromSlaves “ , are culturally relative because obey in everything those who are your the point at issue is not one earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, of ancient culture versus as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of modern culture, but is rather heart, fearing the Lord” to “Employees, a theological question about obey your employers” (with the general the teaching of the whole biblical principle that we are never to Bible concerning the work obey those in authority over us when 117 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

obedience would mean disobedience to Another helpful review of Webb’s approach is found in Thomas R. Schreiner, “Review of Slaves, Women, God’s laws). It is not difficult to move and Homosexuals,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and from “food offered to idols” (1 Cor 8:10) Womanhood 7, no. 1 (Spring, 2002): 48-49, 51 (his to other kinds of things that encourage review was originally published in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6, no. 1 [2002]: 46-64). 3 Christians to violate their conscience. Webb’s second chapter in Discovering Biblical Equality And, to take one Old Testament example is “Gender Equality and Homosexuality” (401-13). of a command that everyone believes tells He argues that homosexual conduct is contrary to us what God expects today, it is not dif- biblical ethics in the Old Testament, the New Testa- ment, and in his “ultimate ethic” as well. Though I ficult to move from “You shall not covet disagree with the methodology he used to reach this your neighbor’s…ox” (Exod 20:17) to conclusion and with the “redemptive-movement her- “You shall not covet you neighbor’s car meneutic” structure within which he argued, I do not differ with his conclusion that homosexual conduct is or boat.” morally wrong today, and therefore I will not interact My suggestion, then, about the specifically with that chapter in any detail in this es- question of culturally relative commands, say. My differences with his redemptive-movement hermeneutic are found in what follows in this essay is that it is not that difficult a question. as I interact with his longer book. 4 There are perhaps three to five “culturally In order to determine if a New Testament command relative” commands concerning physical is to be followed today, Webb proposes eighteen criteria by which it should be evaluated. The criteria actions that carry symbolic meaning are too complex to explain fully in a brief space here, (at least holy kiss, head covering, foot but his names for the criteria, with page numbers in washing; perhaps short hair for men Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, are (1) Preliminary and lifting hands in prayer), but we still Movement (73), (2) Seed Ideas (83), (3) Breakouts (91), (4) Purpose/Intent Statements (105), (5) Basis obey these by applying them in differ- in Fall or Curse (110), (6) Basis in Original Creation, ent forms today. There are other broad Section 1: Patterns (123), (7) Basis in Original Cre- categories of commands (such as Mosaic ation, Section 2: Primogeniture (134), (8) Basis in New Creation (145), (9) Competing Options (152), laws) that are not binding on us because (10) Opposition to Original Culture (157), (11) we are under the new covenant. There Closely Related Issues (162), (12) Penal Code (179), are some fine points that require mature (13) Specific Instructions Versus General Principles (179), (14) Basis in Theological Analogy (185), (15) reflection (such as to what extent the Contextual Comparisons (192), (16) Appeal to the details of the Old Testament show us Old Testament (201), (17) Pragmatic Basis Between what pleases God today). But the rest Two Cultures (209), and (18) Scientific and Social- Scientific Evidence (221). I discuss these criteria —especially the commands in the New at various points in “Should We Move Beyond the Testament addressed to Christians in New Testament to a Better Ethic?” but see especially 337-41. the new covenant—were written for our 5 Webb does not consider the far simpler possibility benefit, and they are not for us to “move that first century readers would have understood the beyond,” but to obey. word “children” (Greek tekna) to apply only to people who were not adults, and so we today can say that Eph 6:1 applies to modern believers in just the same way that it applied to first century believers, and no “cul- 1 tural filters” need to be applied to that command. William Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001). However, just as Webb wrongly asserts that the New 2 See my review article “Should We Move Beyond Testament endorses slavery, so he presents distorted the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An Analysis and incorrect interpretations of several Old Testament of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexu- commands, such as claiming the “the Old Testament als: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis,” accepts the treatment of human beings as property” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47 (2004): (DBE, 385), or “the husband’s implied authority to 299-346. This article also appeared as Appendix 5 physically discipline his wife” (DBE, 387). Webb in Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Bibli- also claims that the Bible in Hosea 2 endorses the cal Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed idea of a husband physically disciplining his wife Questions (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 600-45. after the analogy of God who disciplines the people 118 SPRING 2005

of Israel (SWH, 189–90; also DBE, 387). But here of 1879 edition), 324-25. 12 Webb is assuming a very unlikely view of Hosea 2, Alvin A Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Chris- and he is surely assuming a morally offensive view tianity Transformed Civilization (Grand Rapids: of God and the Bible, because he is claiming that Zondervan, 2001), 274-75; 278-79. Schmidt notes Hosea 2 could have rightly been used by husbands that defenders of slavery “engaged in faulty reasoning, within Israel as a justification for stripping their wives giving descriptive passages in the Bible prescriptive naked and confining them physically as discipline for meaning” (278). 13 wrongdoing! This is something the Bible nowhere Ibid., 276-85. 14 teaches, and certainly it is not taught in Hosea 2, but Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton: Webb claims it is taught there as an example of an Princeton University Press, 2003), 343. 15 inadequate Old Testament ethic. In other cases he Ibid. 16 wrongly takes events in historical narratives and as- Ibid., 344. 17 sumes that they are approved or commanded (DBE, Ibid., 353. 18 385). It is troubling to see Webb labor so hard to show It is surprising that Webb fails even to mention, that the infinitely holy God of the universe actually for example, the explanation of head covering in 1 gave people commands that were morally deficient Corinthians 11 as a culturally variable symbol as or morally wrong, rather than working harder at ex- defended by Thomas Schreiner, “Head Coverings, plaining those commands in a way that makes clear Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16” that they were not wrong. in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. 7 In DBE, 384-87, he attempts to show the moral by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL.: inferiority of several Old Testament laws, but in Crossway, 1991), 124-39. And Webb fails to men- several cases he interprets them in a hostile rather tion the argument of D. A. Carson that “the women than a sympathetic light, giving them a harsh meaning should keep silent in the churches” in 1 Corinthians that is not part of the text itself, and in other cases he 14:34 means they should not speak out in judgment of mistakenly takes narrative examples as if they were prophecies, in “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role commanded or approved. of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recover- 8 The following citations are from the 1838 edition: ing Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 140-53. Both Theodore Weld,The Bible Against Slavery (4th edition; articles have extensive references to other literature New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1838). on these passages. For more recent discussion of these The book was first published in Boston in 1837. See passages see Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism also several essays in Mason Lowance, ed., Against and Biblical Truth, 78-80, 232-23, 332-39. 19 Slavery: An Abolitionist Reader (New York: Penguin Some translations of 1 Pet 3:3 say that women Books, 2000). should not put on “fine clothes” (so NIV; similarly 9 The NIV has “slave traders” in 1 Tim 1:10, but the RSV, NRSV, NLT, NKJV), but there is no adjective term andrapodistes included not only trading but also modifying “clothing” (Greek himation), and the ESV, capturing slaves to be traded. NASB, and KJV have translated it more accurately. 10 20 It would also be a mistake to assume that what the I realize that others might argue that such braided New Testament refers to when it mentions “slaves” hair and jewelry in the first century was recognized as or “servants” (Greek doulos) was in general the same an outward symbol of low moral character, and that situation as the horrible, dehumanizing condition of was the reason that Paul and Peter prohibited it. I’m many nineteenth century slaves in the U.S. A doulos not persuaded by this because Peter still prohibits the in the time of the New Testament had a higher social “wearing of clothing,” and I cannot think that only status and better economic situation than free day women of low moral character wore clothes in the laborers, who had to search for employment each day first century. But if someone does take this position, (see Matt 20:1-7). In Matt 25:15, slaves are entrusted it does not matter much for my argument, for this with “talents,” which were about 20 years’ wages for would then simply be one additional physical action a laborer. Thus the slave who received five talents that carries a symbolic meaning, and in this case also received approximately the equivalent of $500,000 the prohibition would not be one that would apply in 2005 U.S. dollars, and was left to manage it and absolutely to women who wanted to wear braided invest it. “Servants” or “slaves” in the first century hair or jewelry today, since they would not convey were tutors, physicians, nurses, household managers, that meaning in modern society. 21 shop managers, and executives with decision making I am not saying that all physical actions with sym- authority. Although slaves were not free to seek em- bolic meaning are culturally variable, but most are. At ployment elsewhere, they owned their own property, least two are not, because the New Testament gives were protected by extensive Roman laws, and could commands indicating that baptism and the Lord’s usually expect to earn their freedom by age thirty (see Supper should be observed in the church for all Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, time, since they are given by Jesus as abiding symbols 342-45, for more information). (and more than symbols) to be observed by the new 11 J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and covenant people of God. 22 to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959; reprint I realize that many people, including me, would argue 119 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

that many of the laws in the Mosaic law code give us guidance on the kinds of things that are pleasing and displeasing to God today. In some ways that ques- tion is one of the more difficult questions in biblical interpretation. But I know of no Christians who would say that Christians today are actually under the Mosaic covenant, and therefore bound to obey all of the commands in the Mosaic covenant, including the commands about sacrifices and clean and unclean foods, and so forth.

120 SPRING 2005 JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 121-125 “In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem”(Ch 25) by Joan Burgess Winfrey Rebecca Jones Homemaker, Author, Editor Escondido, California

Summary kingdom. If we are to restore women’s This free-ranging chapter by Joan sense of “kingdom purpose,” she says, Burgess Winfrey, professor of counsel- we must work to reduce the “phenomena ing at Denver Seminary, explores how that have placed women outside the gate women find “holy joy” in discovering a for…millennia, rendering them anemic healthy view of their “work of ministry” and sometimes powerless to flourish on and their “ministry of work.” Winfrey their own behalf and on behalf of Christ acknowledges that self-esteem is a mul- and his kingdom” (432). tifaceted concept, in need of clarity. Its To aid us in understanding how true meaning is uncovered only when we have arrived at this state of affairs, “we bring theological discernment to Winfrey discusses three major influ- bear on psychological theory” (433). ences on female self-esteem. The first is Without attempting to produce such a the fall. Winfrey echoes Mary Stewart definition in her sixteen-page chapter, Van Leeuwen’s work on the fall, which she mentions two key factors: a sense of encourages us to “go beyond biological, worth and a sense of competence. In her familial and cultural explanations” (435) counseling, she has found that women of gender stereotypes and struggles. often feel a lack of worth and compe- Adam and Eve are both called to two tence, a lack that affects them as they tasks as they reflect the image of God: seek to exercise their gifts in the church. “accountable dominion” and “sociabil- Women frequently believe that they are ity.” The fall “foretells an unreciprocated less intelligent, capable and valuable than desire for intimacy on the part of the men. Winfrey attributes this lack of self woman and a tendency to abuse poser confidence to their having accepted cer- in the case of the man” (436). Thus fallen tain social and psychological categories women, even Christians are prone to seek that exclude them from the work of the peace at any price and to ensure relation- 121 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

ship and nurture even at the expense of than, their position in society” (440). obedience. The third influence on women’s The second influence is that of self-esteem comes from developmental Freud, whose huge contribution to psychology based on a male model of psychology Winfrey praises in passing what maturity should be. Winfrey argues while agreeing with a passage in Betty that prior to the 1980s, psychologists Friedan’s Feminine Mystique that claims tended to measure women’s identity America turned to Freud to get rid of a against male development. Brett Webb- bad conscience about consumerism. The Mitchell suggested that the Enlighten- results for women were not positive: “If ment overemphasized individualism the new psychological religion—which and logical categories, rather than made a virtue of sex, removed all sin from considering maturity as a pilgrimage, a private vice, and cast suspicion on high “mindbodyspirit act of the person,” who aspirations of the mind and spirit—had matures through the grace of God to a more devastating personal effect on the full stature of Christ (442). Women women than men, nobody planned it that accept and participate in a false under- way” (438, quoting Friedan). Freud de- standing of their place when they restrict pended on the “Victorian woman, whose themselves to social/physical or relational degradation and inferiority were taken as roles that have been defined for them by the natural order of things” (439). Freud’s inaccurate psychological models, whose pleasure principal gave consumer driven weaknesses have, in turn, been intensified Americans an excuse to idolize a “Leave in the context of the church. it to Beaver” world, which was, in turn, Winfrey concludes her study by adopted by the church as a biblical model mentioning a few of her fears; that wom- of relating. This resulted in divided gen- en will continue to be exploited by those der spheres, with men doing “real work” who take advantage of their “warm and and women thoroughly domesticated. good” relational context; that women will Such definitions, based on a bio- accept the “dichotomies and categories” logical model, led to a “functionalism” offered them by inadequate psychologi- that does not well-define “kingdom cal models; that churches will continue purpose.” As Friedan put it, “By giving to relegate women to “social-emotional absolute meaning and sanctimonious realms, especially the home,” encouraging value to the term ‘woman’s role,’ function- them to continue believing that “godli- alism put American women into a kind ness with contentment” is the “divine of deep freeze”(439, quoting Friedan). appointment for women”(444). She calls Winfrey mentions Del Birkey’s work on for a “theological self-concept,” without “role theology,” which sets up a conflict which we cannot determine what we as between “gender, gender roles, authority women want. Women want to “partici- or hierarchy” and the Bible’s emphasis on pate in the unfolding drama of redemp- “spiritual gifts, agape love, servant leader- tion,” to “love and work” as full citizens of ship and mutual submission”—aspects God’s City; to “be honored as anointed which properly determine Christian vessels in God’s plan of reconciliation”; to ministry according to Birkey (440). Min- engage in “honest dialogue with the men istry determined on the basis of gender in our lives”; to “listen and be heard”; and relegates women to “a position in the finally, “to ripen into Christian adulthood church that is parallel to, if not worse and grow up gifted in the name of Jesus” 122 SPRING 2005

(445-46). finiteness and through persistent effort to discover truth, both from God’s revealed Critique Word and from his creation, which is also Winfrey’s obvious compassion for part of his revelation” (437). women uncertain of their place in the Such faith in psychology as neutral world and in the church comes through science is puzzling, since Winfrey has loud and clear in her chapter, as does readily admitted that psychological con- her desire to count in the kingdom of structs are difficult to measure and not at Christ. However, she falls into the very all the same as definitions and measure- trap she asks others to avoid. She appeals ments in the physical sciences. Because to Christian women to resist the society’s of this, “we should not attempt to strin- or the church’s definitions of the value gently apply the rigors of the scientific of women, and to seek, rather, a sense of method to the study of humans” (434). worth and competence in “the strength Do we not, as Bible-believing Christians, of God’s truth” (445). No Christian eager bear the responsibility of stringently to understand women’s place in ministry applying the truths of the Scripture to would disagree with this desire, but in our study of humans, since God himself order to define our “work of ministry” created and defined us? Winfrey calls for and our “ministry of work,” it is not suf- such an approach—“We need a theo- ficient to sprinkle a dash of Bible into a logical self-concept” (445), but utterly psychological potpourri to produce an fails to help us find it in the Scriptures. appetizing dish. Christians cannot rely on interpretations Winfrey calls for a working defi- of human motivations and goals offered nition of self-esteem, one which would by those who have no understanding of bring together “valuable, respectable why humans were created or what their research in psychology with teachings of God-given goals should be. Christians Scripture as they relate to the many layers can never take off their biblical glasses, of the self.” She asks us not to base our especially in analyzing the state of the self-esteem on models created by tradi- human soul, which is the sole domain of tionalists, but she bases her definition on God’s Spirit (1 Cor 2:11-16; 4:3-5). conclusions drawn by psychologists writ- Having admitted that there is ing from a secular worldview: “Although virtually no way to define self-esteem, writings on gender have frequently re- Winfrey calls on women to exercise it flected a secular worldview, the body of more boldly. Says Winfrey, “Self-esteem, knowledge on the subject accumulated adequately defined, may well determine in the biological and social sciences is not only the ability of Christian women of much potential value to the church” to follow God’s call on their life but (437). She even seems to equate the re- indeed the belief that God would call search of pagan psychologists with God’s them at all.”(431) This is rather curious revelation in nature: “The church has the reasoning. If we could only define self- duty of accumulating, interpreting and esteem (which we cannot), we could not sifting scientific and cultural knowledge, only offer women the ability to follow and the privilege of speaking to the God’s call, but insure their belief in needs of society from God’s truth. This that call. Winfrey contents herself with is accomplished through the humility various psychological models, such as that ensues from the recognition of our Sanford and Donovan’s definition—“the 123 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

reputation we have with ourselves”(433). to the kingdom for?”(444), though it Though she would not like to see it put so would be better phrased differently: “To baldly, Winfrey is arguing that a woman what does God call me, a woman in his cannot truly serve the kingdom until she kingdom?” We do not have the right to has found a liberated sense of worth and answer that question. Only God can, and competence by breaking with traditional if he has already defined that purpose, views of woman’s role in the church and then we have no right to redefine it. It erasing the misconceptions that tradi- is true that each woman is unique and tionalists have foisted on her about the will serve Christ as an individual, but nature of God. The problem woman is she is not free to define her calling ac- the one who “gives herself away at the cording to her gifts, if she steps outside expense of her self-respect” (443). Win- the boundaries God has drawn. Winfrey frey works with such a woman “helping suggests that those boundaries have been her reframe her internal representations misunderstood by the church, which is of God, a crucial step in the healing of her surely true to some extent. But the ques- soul” (443). The reader is not told which tion remains, and Winfrey’s article does representations of God are exorcised and not answer it: Has God himself set limits which rush in to take their place. In the on women’s ministry in the church? If so, end, it seems that the woman herself is women must respect them in their service the one who defines her work and her joy. to Christ and his kingdom. “There exists for each one, as the beloved, It is beyond the scope of this brief a God-breathed self-statement and job review to offer a thorough response to description. The pursuit and discovery such a question. However, one mistake of that divine intent hold the secrets of that sometimes blinds us is to think of joy and the composition of self-esteem” calling as the sum of our passion and our (432). gifts. Gifts do not equal calling. Passion The problem with defining our does not equal calling. And even the sum work of ministry according to our “self- of gifts + passion ≠ calling. God has poured statement” is that the Scriptures do not out his gifts lavishly on his children. We equate calling with self-esteem, even if all have God-given gifts we have never we do not use the term “self-esteem” in pulled off the shelves to use yet in God’s its most secular definition. We must not kingdom. We do not have the time in delude women by presenting their pres- this brief life to develop all the gifts God ent joy as the treasure they should seek. has given us, and Paul even suggests that Joy is the ultimate by-product of service, we are to ask God for gifts we do not yet a gift of the Spirit that infuses us now in possess (1 Cor 12:31)! So gifts cannot some deep sense, but which will come to be the unique and determining factor fruition only as we accept God’s defini- in calling. Nor can our passions define tion of our calling, enduring the trials he that calling. has ordained for us, sacrificing ourselves Jesus passionately wished that the and our desires for the joy that is set cup could pass from him, but it was not before us (Matt 25:21; Luke 6:22-23; the Father’s will, to which he obediently 10:20; John 16:20-22; Rom 14:15-19; submitted himself in spite of the suffer- 2 Cor 7:4ff; 8:1-2; Jas 1:2; 4:7-10; 1 Pet ing he endured. It was Jesus’ God-given 1:6-8). Winfrey points to a question we calling to save his people. How urgently may justly ask: “What have we come he must have longed to march into 124 SPRING 2005

Jerusalem, set himself up as king, and reproduce “after their own kind;” and he shepherd the lost sheep of Israel. Did creates “male” and “female.” He calls each he have the gifts to be their king, priest, creature into existence and sets it in its and pastor? Absolutely. Did he have the own holy (sanctified) place. Each part of desire and passion? Definitely. Was it God’s creation brings honor and glory to God’s calling? Yes, but he was not to ac- his name as it accomplishes the “role” for complish that calling the “easy” way. This which it has been set apart and called. So is the case for every Christian. We have an elephant finds joy in its “elephantness” godly passions to serve the kingdom, and and a rock in its “rockness.” The donkey we have gifts God has given us to accom- “knows its master’s crib.” Masculinity and plish his purposes, but we must submit femininity are not on a continuum! This our gifts and passions to God and follow idea is what our present culture is trying the path he lays before us. That path for to force upon us, to the detriment of our women’s service is defined in Scripture. familial and societal health. The destruc- She was created after Adam, as “a helper tion of God’s dichotomies is the goal of fit for him” (Gen 2:18). This pre-fall pagan spirituality, which finds its ecstasy creation definition does not change in in bringing together the opposites and in Christ’s kingdom, though we understand attempting to destroy the differences God it more deeply and have greater power to has set in our world. accomplish it. Winfrey is certainly not consciously This leads us to the third puzzling advocating any pagan spiritual experi- aspect of Winfrey’s article, namely her ences, but because she values so highly aversion to “dichotomies and categories.” (and borrows from so freely) what she Arguing that such divisions come from considers to be “valuable, respectable re- the Garden of Eden, she does not mean search in psychology” (433), she is prone that God set such divisions in his cre- to absorbing definitions and values far ation, but that dichotomies are a result from those given us by God in the Scrip- of the fall. “Femininity and masculinity tures. God calls men to serve him as men, are more accurately depicted on a con- and he calls women to serve as women. tinuum,” she argues. “Prior to the 1960s, If this is structural and biological deter- psychological research…conceptualized minism, then it is not Freud’s, but God’s. masculinity and femininity as bipolar Both sexes are equally servants of Christ. opposites. The view of male and female Both are equally in God’s image. But a as opposites, having mutually exclusive Christian woman’s “holy joy” is found not qualities, has deep historical roots” (437). in rebelling against the clear teachings of She sees the sharp distinctions some Scripture that she is to be in submission to Christians make between male and fe- her husband and is to refrain from taking male roles as a Christianized form of the on a teaching or authoritative role in the biological determinism of Freud. administration of Christ’s church. Her joy Opposites do come from the Gar- is found rather as she plunges her roots den of Eden, but they were ordained deep into the power of the Spirit within before the fall. In all of God’s work of her to live out her holy creation calling as creation, he constantly makes distinc- a woman, set apart and sanctified to fol- tions. He calls the light day and the low the path her Creator and Savior has darkness night; he separates the waters laid down for her. In her whole-hearted from the dry land; he creates species that obedience to that “set-apart” call, she will find holy joy. 125 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 126-133 Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Articles in 2004 Compiled and Annotated by Rob Lister Contributing Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Louisville, Kentucky

In this issue of the journal we profile classify them more specifically. some of the most significant gender- related articles from 2004. Here is a brief reminder about the categories we Complementarian are using and our intent in using them. Authors/Articles By Complementarian we simply seek to designate an author who recognizes Branch, Alan. “Radical Femi- the full personal equality of the sexes, nism and Abortion Rights: A Brief coupled with an acknowledgment of role Summary and Critique.” Journal for distinctions in the home and church. By Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 9, Egalitarian then, we intend to classify no. 2 (2004):19-25. evangelicals who see only undifferenti- Branch summarizes the radical femi- ated equality, i.e., affirming they see no nist worldview and its implications for scriptural warrant for male headship in the public policy of abortion rights ad- the home or the church. Under the Non- vocates. His assessment of radical femi- Evangelical heading, we have classified nism especially takes into consideration important secular works as well as articles the work of Rosemary Radford Ruether, that broach the subject of biblical gender Mary Daly, and Ginette Paris. Branch issues from a religious, albeit, non-evan- then suggests that the overarching prin- gelical point of view. This category also ciple supplied by radical feminism is the serves as our classification for Liberal demand for absolute autonomy. With scholars wanting to retain some sort of respect to abortion rights, this demand Christian identity. Finally, under the is then inserted into public policy by way Undeclared heading, we have listed those of agitating for the absolute reproduc- articles that do not give sufficient indica- tive autonomy of women. In turning to tion of their fundamental stance for us to a brief critique, Branch notes that the 126 SPRING 2005

worldview of radical feminism grows authority by an appeal to untruthful or out of a key theological error, namely the unsubstantiated claims. Finally, in several embrace of pantheism. This theological concluding sections, Grudem points out mis-step then, naturally leads to sexual where these disturbing trends are likely chaos and the intergenerational violence to take the egalitarian movement. This that is committed in the name of abor- article, which is an adapted excerpt from tion rights. Grudem’s recent book (Evangelical Femi- nism and Biblical Truth [Multinomah, Duncan, Ligon and Terry Johnson. 2004]), will make an excellent resource “A Call to Family Worship.” Journal for for pastors and concerned laity who Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 9, no. would benefit from a summary-like “field 1 (2004): 6-16. manual” addressing many of the most Duncan and Johnson enjoin par- prominent egalitarian arguments. ents—and particularly fathers—to ful- fill the task of leading their families in Grudem, Wayne. “Should We Move regular worship together. In addition Beyond the New Testament to a Better to marshalling the biblical directives be- Ethic?” Journal of the Evangelical Theo- hind such a responsibility, this article is a logical Society 47 (2004): 299-346. goldmine of wisdom concerning practical Grudem offers a thorough analysis application. The authors also offer help- and detailed criticism of William Webb’s ful advice on how to get started and how redemptive movement hermeneutic pro- to persevere in the face of apathy or even posal in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. resistance from one’s family. Readers will He unfolds twenty-three detailed criti- take great encouragement at the potential cisms concerning Webb’s argument, and long-term cumulative effect of consistent then comments specifically on each of and committed family worship for fifteen Webb’s eighteen hermeneutical criteria. minutes a day, six days a week, for the According to Grudem the underlying duration of a child’s stay in the home. problem with the whole proposal is that it sets up a scheme that “nullifies in prin- Grudem, Wayne. “Is Evangelical ciple the moral authority of the entire NT Feminism the New Path to Liberal- and replaces it with the moral authority ism? Some Disturbing Warning Signs.” of a ‘better ethic.’” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Wom- anhood 9, no. 1 (2004): 35-84. Hawkins, Susie. “The Essence of the Grudem provides a thoroughgoing Veil: The Veil as a Metaphor for Islamic critique of egalitarian arguments and Women.” Journal for Biblical Manhood tendencies that tilt towards effectively and Womanhood 9, no. 1 (2004): 29-34. negating the authority of Scripture for Hawkins explains the “veiling” cus- our lives. After drawing an historical toms of women in Islamic nations, the connection between liberalism and evan- point of which is to avoid attracting male gelical feminism, Grudem first evaluates attention because Islam essentially views fifteen ways in which egalitarians have the female body as the cause of sexual denied the authority of Scripture out- immorality. She further documents right. Then he turns to an examination how certain Islamic regulations help to of ten additional ways in which egalitar- institutionalize the oppression of women. ians have indirectly nullified the Bible’s In her conclusion, Hawkins expands her 127 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

insights to include some suggestions to of American feminism and the psycho- keep in mind when Christian women at- logical pillars undergirding it. She then tempt to reach out to Muslim women. turns to examine specific ways that we, in the church, have been influenced by Heimbach, Daniel R. “Manhood, this worldly philosophy, before finally Womanhood and Therapeutic Moral- pointing out Scripture’s antidotes to ity.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and these attitudes. Womanhood 9, no. 2 (2004): 30-34. After describing therapeutic sexual Scott, Stuart W. “Profiling Chris- morality (TSM), Heimbach provides tian Masculinity.” Journal for Biblical a very interesting discussion of its psy- Manhood and Womanhood 9, no. 2 (2004): chological history and development. 10-18. He then expounds seven reasons why In this article, Scott aims to demon- Christians must reject the worldview of strate what true biblical masculinity is TSM. Heimbach points out that the and is not. The backdrop to the discus- fundamental problem with TSM is that sion is a brief examination of the sinful it tragically esteems sex—not God—as distortions of masculinity throughout the the ultimate satisfier of mankind’s deep- ages, and especially in the more recent est needs. trend toward relativism. Over against these failed cultural notions of mascu- Liederbach, Mark. “Manliness and linity, Scott evaluates six fundamental the Marital Vow: A Look at the Mean- realities that are true of men and women. ing of Marriage and its Implications for He then turns to an examination of key Men as They Enter Into the Covenant characteristics drawn from the life of of Marriage.”Journal for Biblical Man- Jesus as well as from the qualifications hood and Womanhood 9, no. 2 (2004): given for male leadership in the church. 4-9. Scott then concludes with an analysis of Liederbach makes a convincing case four characteristics (viz., Leader, 1 Cor- that the ultimate end of marriage is the inthians 13 Lover, Protector, Provider) “experience and expansion of the worship in which men must excel if they are to of God in all the earth.” Therefore, he fulfill the major roles given to them, be- contends that if men maintain a focus fore offering a final definition of biblical on this larger purpose as they lead in masculinity. marriage, then they will find a stronger fabric to their marriages when difficult Walton, Mark David. “What We times come. And, as a result, they will not Shall Be: A Look at Gender and the only be less likely to divorce, but they will New Creation.” Journal for Biblical also enter more deeply into the proximate Manhood and Womanhood 9, no.1 (2004): joys of marriage. 17-28. Walton addresses himself to the Peace, Martha. “The Influence of question of whether or not resurrected the World.” Journal for Biblical Man- believers in the new creation will retain hood and Womanhood 9, no. 2 (2004): their gender distinctiveness as male 26-29. and female. Walton notes that such a Peace opens her article with a question is of particular relevance, given thoughtful account of the early history the rampant gender confusion of the 128 SPRING 2005

contemporary climate. Upon surveying onstrate that a number of theologians three possible views, Walton makes the throughout church history have used exegetical and theological case that our feminine as well as masculine metaphors gender distinctives shall remain even in to refer to God. She stresses throughout, the new creation. that these feminine metaphors were a way of picturing God’s immanence as well as his transcendence. Haddad is Egalitarian Authors/Articles also concerned, however, that we not overestimate the significance of Jesus’ Carlson-Thies, Christiane. “Man masculinity. She writes, for instance, and Woman at Creation: A Critique of “Though gender was part of Christ’s Complementarian Interpretations.” humanity, Christ’s humanity is more Priscilla Papers 18, no. 4 (2004): 5-9. central than his gender. To absolutize Carlson-Thies alleges that the com- Christ’s gender is to lose the universality plementarian reading of Genesis 1-2 is of Christ’s sacrifice. . . . The point of the plagued by a double standard and an il- incarnation is that Christ represents the legitimate appeal to the Pauline interpre- flesh of all people. Thus Christ is far more tation of the creation narrative. Indeed, often understood as human . . . than as it appears to her that complementarians male.” What Haddad seems to suggest is have begun with an extra-biblical pre- that we should emphasize Jesus’ generic commitment to male authority, which humanity more than his maleness, lest we they force on the text in an effort to “ex- risk excluding women from the sphere of clude” women. What emerges from this salvation. By way of response, I will men- presentation, however, is Carlson-Thies’s tion just two points and then suggest a failure to recognize more than one strand couple of resources. First, while agreeing of emphasis in the creation narrative, as with Haddad that God is not a physically well as in the broader scope of biblical gendered being, that is not all that needs teaching. Egalitarians, such as Carlson- to be said. It is true that the Bible, on a Thies, often think that complementarians few occasions, does use feminine imagery are trying to manipulate the text when for God, though it never uses feminine they argue that men and women share names (e.g., Mother) or pronouns (e.g., full personal equality, but carry out differ- she) for God. Conversely, God has seen ent roles. Complementarians, however, fit to reveal himself in Scripture with point out that this formulation is born masculine names, appellatives, and pro- out of a reading of the dual emphases in nouns. It seems then that, without iden- Scripture. Finally, it is worth noting that tifying himself as physically male, God’s Carlson-Thies does not think that Paul’s purposeful self-revelation in masculine interpretation of the creation narrative terms does intend to tell us something is definitive. about his nature and character. Secondly, speaking of the incarnate Christ’s male- Haddad, Mimi. “Evidence for and ness as a mere historical accident fails Significance of Feminine God-Lan- to take into account the eternal Father- guage from the Church Fathers to the Son relationship of the first and second Modern Era.” Priscilla Papers 18, no. 3 person of the Trinity. For more detailed (2004): 3-11. interactions with these important ques- Haddad’s aim in this article to dem- tions see “Seven Reasons Why We Can- 129 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

not Call God ‘Mother’” by Randy Stinson is inevitably moving in a thoroughly and Christopher W. Cowan (http://www. egalitarian direction. cbmw.org/article.php?id=99), and Bruce Ware’s “Could Our Savior Have Been a Phelan Jr., John E. “Women and the Woman? The Relevance of Jesus’ Gender Aims of Jesus.” Priscilla Papers 18, no. for His Incarnational Mission,” Journal 1 (2004): 7-11. for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8, Phelan’s article gives a biblical the- no. 1 (2003): 31-38 (accessible online). ology of the advance of the Kingdom of God. Much of his discussion of the Kroeger, Catherine Clark. “Does OT backdrop and the announcement of Belief in Women’s Equality Lead to an the kingdom in the preaching of Jesus is Acceptance of Homosexual Practice?” very solid. Phelan repeatedly (and cor- Priscilla Papers 18, no. 2 (2004): 3-10. rectly) observes that in the new covenant, Kroeger’s article attempts to dem- “All God’s people are priests! All God’s onstrate that the Scriptures endorse people have the Spirit! All God’s people gender egalitarianism on the one hand are holy!” But his argument breaks down and oppose homosexual behavior on the near the end of the article where he other hand. She acknowledges that the overextends this insight to conclude that question has come to the fore because “any restriction on any of God’s people, some proponents of gender egalitarian- male or female, is contrary to the king- ism have gone on to affirm homosexual dom ideal. . . .” By way of response, we practice as well. Kroeger contends that should note that the Pastoral Epistles, for the key distinctive, however, is whether instance, make it clear that Spirit-gifted- one stands under the ultimate authority ness is not the only criterion for ministry of Scripture or of women’s experience. service. Even in the new covenant, there Hence, she suggests that egalitarians are limitations that affect the ministry who embrace the authority of Scripture service of all people. Just consider the will resist homosexuality, even while they following examples: A divorced man affirm the completely undifferentiated cannot serve as an elder (1 Tim 3:2), no participation of women in ministry. matter how much ability he may have to teach. A fantastic teacher, who has Marshall, Molly T. “Engaging Gen- unruly children also cannot serve as an der Relations.” Review and Expositor elder (1 Tim 3:4). A heavy drinker can- 101 (2004): 35-39. not serve as a deacon (1 Tim 3:8). And, Marshall surveys two earlier articles even women who are gifted to teach (e.g., from the Review and Expositor, on oppo- Titus 2:3-5) may not “teach or exercise site ends of the “gender debate” spectrum. authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12). For The first is an article from early in the his part, Phelan suggests that the “hard twentieth century that seemingly fears passages” must be read in light of the the effect of the growing women’s move- larger limitation-exploding spirit of the ment, while the second is an article from kingdom reality. the end of the twentieth century that seemingly fears the effect of what will Spencer, Aida Besancon. “What are happen if the church fails to embrace the the Biblical Roles of Female and Male growing women’s movement. Marshall’s Followers of Christ?” Priscilla Papers historical assessment is that the church 18, no. 2 (2004): 11-16. 130 SPRING 2005

Spencer disavows the notion that a concession to the social standards of men and women might be equal in es- decency in a pagan patriarchal culture, sence but different in roles. In support for the purpose of displaying the social of this thesis, she marshals many of the effects of the gospel to otherwise skep- traditional egalitarian arguments. She tical outsiders. Since we now live in a contends that the sequence of creation setting, which repudiates patriarchy, the and the act of Adam’s naming do not sup- normative missional emphasis must take port the complementarian view, because a different cultural shape in an on-go- Gen 1:26-28 indicates that both man ing effort to “adorn the gospel.” Wall and woman are created in the image of grounds his interpretation on the “mi- God and both receive the mandate of drashic” exegesis of the creation narrative stewardship. Spencer further argues that in verses 13-15. Here, Wall emphasizes the Persons of the Trinity actually model that Eve’s recognition of her redemption mutual submission as well. Hence, “head” (v. 15) liberates her to live modestly. In in 1 Cor 11:3 should only be understood all of this, it is interesting that Wall casu- to mean “source.” Once again, however, ally dismisses the fairly straightforward this kind of reading allows one emphasis grounding of Paul’s prohibition (v. 12) on (i.e., full personal equality) in the creation an appeal to the creation order (v. 13). narrative to silence the other emphasis (i.e., a designation of male leadership). With respect to the doctrine of the Trin- Waters, Kenneth L. “Saved Through ity, it also overlooks a mass of biblical Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 data in support of the eternal, functional Timothy 2:11-15.” Journal of Biblical subordination of the Son, and it intro- Literature 123 (2004): 703-735. duces arbitrariness into the Godhead, Waters argues that 1 Tim 2:11-15 with the implicit assumption that any of is a fairly elaborate allegory, in which the members of the Godhead could have “Adam” stands for the male leaders of become incarnate. the Ephesian congregation, “Eve” stands for the wealthy and less mature female Wall, Robert W. “1 Timothy 2:9- members, and “childbearing” is not meant 15 Reconsidered (Again).” Bulletin for literally, but as a metaphor for “virtues- Biblical Research 14 (2004): 81-103. bearing.” That is, according to Waters, Wall offers a fresh analysis of 1 Tim the four virtues mentioned in 2:15 are the 2:9-15 that includes some useful observa- birthed children, allegorically speaking. tions. Perhaps most helpfully, Wall is very The perceived benefit of this approach is clear in his opposition to interpretations that it harmonizes more readily with the of this passage that seek to undermine its typical Pauline insistence on salvation by contemporary application by appealing faith. Without suggesting that 2:15 is an to highly speculative (and unwarranted) easy verse to interpret, the problem with background reconstructions about es- Waters’s approach is that in making this pecially unruly Ephesian women. And overly complex case, he overlooks the yet, Wall limits the force of this passage relatively simple and historical point of in his own way. He contends that the male leadership behind Paul’s appeal to purpose of the passage is missional, not the creation narrative. Clearly, Waters’s sociological. In other words, according suggested backdrop prevents the trans- to Wall, the prohibition in verse 12 was cultural application of this passage. 131 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Wave Feminism and Family Plural- Non-Evangelical ism.” Journal of Family Issues 25 (2004): 851-880. Authors/Articles The authors contend that contem- porary feminist families are raising their Baber, H. E. “Is Homosexuality children in ways that are commensurate Sexuality?” Theology 107 (2004): 169- with the broader aims of third-wave fem- 183. inism. Their findings derive from a set On explicitly utilitarian grounds, of interviews with twenty self-identified Baber argues that “homosexuality does feminist families, including two-parent not count as sexuality,” and so is morally and single-parent families, as well as gay permissible. While utilitarian benefits and lesbian families. Mack-Canty and may accrue from retaining traditional Wright appear implicitly to endorse this constraints on heterosexual activity, new wave of parenting that challenges Baber argues that this is not so in the “unnecessary parental authority,” prac- case of homosexuality. It is interesting, tices democratic decision making, and therefore, to find that she does not think undermines the morality of Christian the Church should bless same-sex unions family values. Indeed, they suggest that or ordain homosexuals. Baber acknowl- the children from these feminist homes edges that while this may be ironic, the are better equipped for their adult re- same utilitarian ethic leads her to these sponsibilities in society. apparently conflicting conclusions, for she maintains that such changes in Martin, Troy W. “Paul’s Argument church policy are likely to help only a from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corin- few but to damage many more. thians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering.” Journal of Biblical de Mingo, Alberto. “Saint Paul and Literature 123 (2004): 75-84. Women.” Theology Digest 51 (2004): Martin makes the very unique argu- 9-18. ment that in the ancient world, a post- de Mingo maintains that the Pau- pubescent woman’s hair was thought line literature does not prohibit women to be part of the female genitalia cor- from any roles in ministry. His case is responding to the male testicle. This, fairly easy to argue, since he does not in turn, is thought to make sense of the accept Pauline authorship of Colossians, requirement of female head-coverings Ephesians, or the Pastorals. In accepting when praying or prophesying, since it 1 Corinthians as authentic, he avoids the would be inappropriate for women to difficulty of 1 Cor 14:33-35 by dismiss- display their genitalia in worship. ing it as a later insertion. According to de Mingo, the “deutero-Pauline texts” (e.g. the Pastorals) reflect a backlash in Undeclared Authors/Articles the Pauline communities after his death that reasserted the culturally normative Briggs, Richard S. “Gender and subjection of women. God-Talk: Can We Call God ‘Moth- er’?” Themelios 29 (2004): 15-25. Mack-Canty, Colleen and Sue Briggs provides an evaluation of the Wright. “Family Values as Practiced various levels of conceptual dialogue in by Feminist Parents: Bridging Third- 132 SPRING 2005

the debate over gender and God-Talk. In his analysis, he traces the standard argumentation of both camps, and sug- gests that, in many cases, the two sides talk past one another because they are engaging at different levels. He then proposes that dialogue proceed self-con- sciously on three levels: the biblical, the historical, and the philosophical. Ac- cording to Briggs, the upper-most level of this debate involves the philosophical assessment of how language (and espe- cially metaphor) works. Those who favor calling God “Mother” often insist that since God-language is metaphorical, we therefore have license to seek new ways of speaking of God. On the other hand, Briggs notes that opponents of “mother language” for God often respond that we are not at liberty to refashion the re- vealed language (including the revealed metaphors) of Scripture, especially when it indicates that in the “order of being” God’s fatherhood has primacy (e.g., Eph 3:14-15). Unfortunately, following some very cogent analysis of the nature of the debate, Briggs finally concludes that since there is no clear right answer to the ques- tion, the matter should best be left up to individual preference.

Dowling, Elizabeth. “Rise and Fall: the Changing Status of Peter and Women Disciples in John 21.” Austra- lian Biblical Review 52 (2004): 48-63. Dowling argues that in John 21, Peter’s status rises all of sudden, whereas the status of women disciples falls all of a sudden. She then contends that the shift in the respective portrayals of Peter and female disciples that John 21 may have been written by a later author with conscientious intentions of supporting male leadership in the early Christian community.

133