Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/1 (Spring 2005) 88-95 “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. Köstenbereger Professor of and Greek Director of Ph.D. and T.M. Studies Southeastern Baptist Teological 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 Tese 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). Tus 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 . 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 Tere 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 Tis, 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). Tis 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. Tis 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. Te 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 Te 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- plicit statements in Scripture (similar to and the source of authority as resting 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). Tis, for Fee, includes the notion can Fee say the passage without a doubt “that only men may hold certain church reflects patriarchy? Tis seems to be a offices” and even the very notion of “of- clear contradiction. fices” in the church itself. Te 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, Tis 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? Tis 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.” Tis 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 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, “Te 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”? Te 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. Tey 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,” Tough 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, Tomas 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. Tis 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 Tan 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