Rightly Dividing the Word - A review of arguments used in ‘All One’

[Resource Manager]

Witherington’s reliance on post-1^st century rabbinic data results in him treating 1^st century Judaism as if all Jewish groups held the same views on women, when in fact a wide variety of views were held.⁸³⁴

 

Neglecting the criteria of genre and chronology, Witherington treats various theological expositions, opinions, and diatribes of the post-1^st century rabbis, as accurate historical descriptions.

 

‘Witherington also makes

no distinction between reality and what may be the opinions, theological interpretations, and polemics of the rabbis

. Instead of meeting its goal, what this chapter provides is

a summary of the rabbinic ideal for women and their role in society

.'

⁸³⁵

 

Adding to these mistakes, Witherington makes historical errors with regard to dates, uncritically reads one source as literal,⁸³⁶ and mistakes a literary character with a real woman, another example of lack of attention to genre.⁸³⁷

 

Witherington also misuses his sources by projecting his own values onto them.⁸³⁸

 

-------

⁸³⁴ ‘While rightly holding that there is no monolithic rabbinic Judaism at this time, he nevertheless treats first-century Judaism as a fairly uniform system. He concludes that, concerning women, "a negative assessment was predominant among the rabbis" (p. 10). No attempt is made to separate out the position of women held by different Jewish sects.’, De George, ‘Reviewed of Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life by Ben Witherington III’, Journal of Biblical Literature (105.4.275), 1986.

 

⁸³⁵ Ibid., p. 725.

 

⁸³⁶ ‘He takes Diodorus' remarks about female dominance in Egypt literally (p. 14), whereas it more probably is part of a widespread Greek topos of Egypt as a world in reverse2).’, de Blois & Hemelrijk, Review of Women in the Earliest Churches by Ben Witherington III’, Mnemosyne, Fourth Series (45.2.279-280), 1992; a ‘topos’ in this context is a literary theme which reccurs in texts over time, a standardized ‘theme’ or narrative structure, such as the ‘three sons’ who reccur in the fairy tales by Hans Christian Andersen and many other fairy tales (the oldest two sons are typically vain, proud, or ignorant and fail as a result, while the youngest is kind, well-mannered, and fortunate and thus succeeds).

 

⁸³⁷ ‘Some minor errors: Thucydides did not live in about 400 B.C. (p. 6), he died probably around that date, Diotima (p. 7 and note 18) was no historical woman, but a literary fiction (Plato, Symp. 201 D). Sempronia was not the wife of Catilina (written as Catalina) (p. 18) and the Bacchanalia were not introduced, but suppressed in 186 B.C. (p. 20)*).', ibid., p. 280.

 

⁸³⁸ ‘On p. 14 he regards the Egyptian goddess Isis as "the patron saint of Egyptian's women's movement", an anachronistic and misleading point of view. She was a mother goddess1).’, ibid., p. 279.

[Resource Manager]

Paul knew how his statements sounded

 

As with Jewish society, 1^st century Greco-Roman society contained a wide range of attitudes towards women, from the misogynist to the egalitarian.⁸³⁹

 

From this socio-historical background, we know that private associations were free to decide on their own codes of conduct even if these breached social norms,⁸⁴⁰ and that 1^st century Christian women (whether Jews or Gentiles), would have had reasonable expectations of participating in the congregational worship as a result of their previous religious experiences.

 

Paul would therefore have been aware of how his commandments concerning women sounded, and accordingly sought to soften the message.^{841 842 843}

 

Egalitarian scholars have noted this particular feature of Paul's commandments, in the seven passages in which he gives commandments concerning the relationship of men and women in the ecclesia and the family using a formulated style.

 

-------

⁸³⁹ ‘But studies of Roman society have found a variety of indicators about the status of women, and what was true about women in the eastern part of the empire was not necessarily true about women in the western empire. On the one hand, there was the household headed by the husband/father/master, a hierarchical order-obedience structure that included those who were economically dependent. On the other hand, there were emancipatory ideas about women that allowed them greater freedom and economic independence (some were even the heads of households).’, Tanzer (egalitarian), 'Eph 5:22-33 Wives (and Husbands) Exhorted', in Meyers, Craven, & Kraemer, 'Women in scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament', p. 481 (2001).

 

⁸⁴⁰ ‘Whereas in the larger outside world, both Roman control and residual customs mitigated against mixing men and women, slave and free, foreign and religious practice; in the voluntary associations there was a lively atmosphere in which these mixes could be tried out and experienced without threat of larger social catastrophe or consequences.’, Nerney, & Taussig, ' Re-Imagining Life Together in America: A New Gospel of Community ', p. 12 (2002).

 

⁸⁴¹ ‘a “mitigation,” “softening of the blow,” or “saving phrase” to make the statement, assertion, or command less offensive to women.’, Walker, (egalitarian) ‘The “Theology of Woman’s Place” And the “Paulinist” Tradition’, Semeia (28.106), 1983.

 

⁸⁴² ‘In 11:11–12, however, he backtracks lest the Corinthians become confused and think that he implies that women are inferior to men. He is not attempting to establish a gender hierarchy that places women in a subordinate role. Since he argues from hierarchy to make his case about head coverings, he needs to caution against any misapplication of what he says. Women and men are interdependent in the Lord.’, Garland (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 508-509 (2003).

 

⁸⁴³ ‘In other contexts, among some gentiles, Paul’s moral conservatism and reaffirmation of traditional roles for women would have appeared too confining (this appears to have been the case in Corinth).’, Witherington (egalitarian), ‘Women (New Testament)’, in Freedman (ed.), ‘Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary’, volume 6, p. 959 (1996).

[Resource Manager]

1 Corinthians 11:3-16:

 

• Commandment: Women’s heads should be covered when praying and prophesying
   
  
• Reason: The woman is the glory of the man, woman came from man, woman was created for man, and because of the angels
   
  
• Mitigation: In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman; just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God
   
  
  1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
  
   
  
• Commandment: Women should be silent in the ecclesias, they are not permitted to speak
   
  
• Reason: Let them be in submission, as the Law says; it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church
   
  
• Mitigation: If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home
   
  
  Ephesians 5:22-25:
  
   
  
• Commandment: Wives, submit to your husbands
   
  
• Reason: The husband is the head of the wife
   
  
  Mitigation
  : Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them
  
   
  
  Colossians 3:18-19:
  
   
  
• Commandment: Wives, submit to your husbands
   
  
• Reason: It is fitting in the Lord
   
  
• Mitigation: Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the ecclesia
   
  
  1 Timothy 2:8-15:
  
   
  
• Commandment: Women must learn in all submissiveness; I do not permit a woman to teach or to hold authority over a man, she must remain quiet
   
  
• Reason: Adam was formed first, and then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression
   
  
• Mitigation: She will be delivered through ‘childbearing’,⁸⁴⁴ if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control
   
  
  Titus 2:4-5:
  
   
  
• Commandment: Wives are to be subject to their own husbands
   
  
• Reason: So that the message of God is not discredited
   
  
• Mitigation: [not explicit]

 

-------

⁸⁴⁴ The precise meaning of the Greek word here is a matter of interpretation; the majority of commentators understand it as a figure of speech for the role of the woman as wife and mother, sometimes as ‘motherhood’, such as EDNT, ‘According to 1 Tim 2:15 in its interpretation of Gen 3:16, bearing children / motherhood is the special task of women, including according to v. 15b a life in faith (possibly a reference to the rearing of children in faith; cf. b. Ber. 17a): σωθήσετaι δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίaς.’, Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 3, p. 340 (1990-c1993), and ANLEX, ‘bearing children, childbearing, motherhood (1T 2.15)’, Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 376 (2000); ‘The final interpretation may be termed “the majority view.” 44 This view would hold that Christian women are not saved through teaching and asserting authority, but by attention to their traditional role. “Childbearing” serves as a figure of speech to illustrate Paul’s argument that women need not behave as men but rather fulfill their divinely appointed role to find salvation.’, Moss (complementarian), ‘1, 2 Timothy & Titus’, College Press NIV Commentary (1994).

[Resource Manager]

All these passages contain instructions concerning the role and relationship of women in the ecclesia and in the family which Paul knew would be seen by women themselves as placing limits on their participation in the ecclesia and placing them under the authority of their husbands, and which he sought to soften in some way as a result.

 

Four of these passages appeal explicitly to other passages of Scripture for support,⁸⁴⁵ and none are explained as a response to an existing local situation, nor justified as just a cultural accommodation.⁸⁴⁶

 

-------

⁸⁴⁵ 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, 1 Peter 3:5-6.

 

⁸⁴⁶ The commandment in Titus 2:5 for wives to submit to their husbands is justified here by ‘So that the message of God is not discredited’, but the same commandment is also accompanied by two additional reasons elsewhere; Ephesians 5:23, ‘The husband is the head of the wife’, Colossians 3:18, ‘It is fitting in the Lord’.

[Resource Manager]

Egalitarians agreeing with complementarians

 

The following quotations are taken from notable supporters of the egalitarian case for the role of women in the ecclesia;⁸⁴⁷ note that even these supporters of the egalitarian case acknowledge it is not taught in the Bible.

 

Some of these quotations were presented in my previous work, ‘A Sister’s Role’. Ian and Averil responded with an inaccurate accusation towards the authors of these quotations:

 

‘Comment: It is illuminating to see Brother Burke’s use here of non-Christadelphian commentators.

We examine critically what each says, but their arguments tend to be: “The Bible is patriarchal. It says that men should rule women. We don’t accept that, so we reject the Bible

‟. We consider that they adopt the traditional, male-clergy-orientated assumptions too uncritically; and examination of their views on traditional orthodox church teachings such as on the Devil and the Trinity would show the same.

To quote them, therefore, to back up Brother Burke’s argument is not acceptable to those of us who do believe the Bible

.’

⁸⁴⁸

 

Despite Ian and Averil’s claim that ‘We examine critically what each say’,⁸⁴⁹ none of the authors quoted make the argument Ian and Averil wrongly attribute to them.⁸⁵⁰

 

Ian and Averil acknowledge that they haven’t even read the work of one of the authors quoted,⁸⁵¹ and it is clear that they haven’t read the works of any of the other authors quoted either. If they had, they would certainly not have charged them wrongly with rejecting the Bible.

 

-------

⁸⁴⁷ All of them are individuals who believe the Bible is inspired, do not believe the Bible is the misogynistic product of a patriarchal society, and believe on the contrary that the Bible is highly liberating of women; they are not ‘anti-Bible’ nor are they ‘feminist’ in the secular meaning of the term.

 

⁸⁴⁸ ‘Reply 2’, p. 100 (April 2009).

 

⁸⁴⁹ Ibid. p. 100.

 

⁸⁵⁰ ‘…their arguments tend to be: “The Bible is patriarchal. It says that men should rule women. We don’t accept that, so we reject the Bible‟.’, ibid., p. 100.

 

⁸⁵¹ ‘We have not read Professor Sparks’ book’, ibid., p. 113.

[Resource Manager]

In any case, it would be inconsistent of Ian and Averil to object to these authors even if they did reject the Bible, since Ian and Averil themselves are content to appeal directly to authors who cast doubt on significant parts of the Bible, in support of their own arguments.

 

Although his attitude to authorship differs from the other authors quoted in this section, Ian Marshall’s comments on the interpretation of Paul are included here because Ian and Averil are apparently content with him as a commentator despite the fact that he does not believe Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus.

 

Furthermore, Marshall does not reject these letters as non-canonical, or dismiss them as non-authoritative. Marshall believes they belong in the canon, and sees them an authoritative part of the Bible, which he defends completely:⁸⁵²

 

‘Nevertheless, for our part,

we must insist that we do hold to the authority of Scriptur

e, and that the issue is one of

the correct exegesis and interpretation of Scripture

.’

⁸⁵³

 

Readers can make up their own minds as to the validity of Marshall’s comments and the relevance of his attitude to the authorship of 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Contrary to what Ian and Averil would have their readers believe, all of the commentators quoted in this section are individuals who believe the Bible is inspired, do not believe the Bible is the misogynistic product of a patriarchal society, and believe on the contrary that the Bible is highly liberating of women.

 

They are not ‘anti-Bible’ nor are they ‘feminist’ in the secular meaning of the term. All of them are egalitarians, and therefore biased in favour of the egalitarian case, but they are sufficiently honest to acknowledge that the case simply does not receive textual support from Scripture.

 

This does not prevent them supporting the egalitarian case, and indeed all suggest various alternative methods for promoting their cause.

 

However, it is noteworthy that even these strong supporters of the egalitarian case are willing to acknowledge that it is not taught in the Bible.

 

-------

⁸⁵² Horrel, quoted later in this section, also believes 1-2 Timothy and Titus were written by someone other than Paul, but likewise sees them as belonging in the canon, and an authoritative part of the Bible.

 

⁸⁵³ Marshall , ‘Women in Ministry’, in Husbands & Larsen, ‘Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 54 (2007).

[Resource Manager]

Bruce Barron

 

Barron is a Presbyterian who is entirely in favour of the egalitarian case, and whose denomination has taken steps to enforce it rigorously.⁸⁵⁴ However, Barron is unconvinced by a number of egalitarian arguments, identifying 1 Timothy 2 as a clear passage which resists egalitarian efforts to circumvent it.⁸⁵⁵

 

Barron identifies the fact that egalitarians typically seek to avoid this passage by ‘trumping’ it with alternative texts which (they claim), it contradicts.⁸⁵⁶ For Barron, the main problem remains, however:

 

‘All this helps the egalitarian cause,

but a convincing, comprehensive reading of I Timothy 2 is still needed

.’

⁸⁵⁷

 

Barron notes egalitarian weaknesses in addressing this passage:

 

'First, defenders of the traditional view have argued that Paul’s blanket statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach,”

sounds universal

. If what he really meant was “I do not permit a woman to teach

error

,” and that he would have no objection to women teaching once they got their doctrine straight,

why did he not say that

? Kroeger received criticism

even from a fellow egalitarian for failing to deal with this point

.16 [original footnote reproduced in footnote

⁸⁵⁸

below]’

⁸⁵⁹

 

Barron also criticizes the common egalitarian claim that Paul forbad women to teach temporarily because they were insufficiently educated, pointing out that egalitarians also claim (in complete contradiction), that women were teaching in the ecclesias because they were sufficiently educated and doctrinally sound.⁸⁶⁰

 

For Barron, the best egalitarian attempt to address the difficulty of 1 Timothy 2 is the argument made by Catherine Kroeger:

 

‘

The most promising effort has come from classicist Catherine Kroeger

, but her major work on the passage, presented in 1984 and published in 1986,7

has not been pursued further

.’

⁸⁶¹

 

Barron attempts to extend Kroeger’s argument, apparently unaware that it has been systematically rejected as inaccurate by a consensus of complementarian, egalitarian, and secular scholars due to its historical inaccuracies and lexical errors.

 

-------

⁸⁵⁴ ‘My own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), has not stopped at legitimizing women’s ordination, but has actually gone so far as to make it compulsory: Each congregation must have female representation in each year’s contingent of incoming elders. When a Presbyterian church near my home resisted, the presbytery sent an ecclesiastical commission out to berate the congregation until it agreed to nominate woman elders.’, Barron, ‘Putting Women In Their Place: 1 Timothy 2 And Evangelical Views Of Women In Church Leadership ‘, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (33.4.452), December 1990.

 

⁸⁵⁵ ‘On the other hand, 1 Timothy 2 is clear in its language, and the egalitarians’ efforts to reinterpret the passage’s intent have often seemed contrived—”hermeneutical oddities,” as our CBMW colleagues have termed them.’, ibid., pp. 452-453.

 

⁸⁵⁶ ‘Fully aware that the hypothetical nature of their reconstructions of 1 Timothy 2 remains their Achilles’ heel, egalitarians have sought to neutralize this frontal assault by outflanking their opponents. That is, while awaiting a satisfactory exegesis of the passage they seek to hamstring their critics by pointing out that Gal 3:28 (“In Christ there is… neither male nor female”) is just as clear and justifiable a point of departure on the topic as 1 Timothy 2, that Paul named women leaders and affirmed their ministries several times in the NT, and that if traditionalists want to treat 1 Tim 2:11–12 as normative for today they should also be telling men to lift their hands when they pray (1 Tim 2:8) and resuscitating the category of older widows as a special group in the Church (1 Timothy 5).6’, ibid., p. 453.

 

⁸⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 453.

 

⁸⁵⁸ ‘16. Liefeld, “Response to Kroeger” 245’.

 

⁸⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 455.

 

⁸⁶⁰ ‘And egalitarians are in no position to interpret Paul’s dictum as a temporary prohibition, needed until women could surmount cultural obstacles to education—not when, out of the other side of their mouths, these egalitarians are championing women (one of whom, Priscilla, labored in Ephesus) who did fulfill a teaching or leadership role in the NT.17 Not all women of Paul’s day were intellectually impoverished or hopelessly contaminated by pagan practices, yet Paul seems to prohibit all women from teaching in Ephesus. The egalitarians seem forced into the implausible claim that no woman in the Ephesian church was sufficiently orthodox and educated to teach.’, ibid., pp. 455-456.

 

⁸⁶¹ Ibid., p. 453.

[Resource Manager]

Kathleen Corley

 

Egalitarian scholar Kathleen Corley has spoken of the resistance she has experienced when explaining certain historical facts to the egalitarian public:

 

'From time to time Corley has given a talk titled 'Feminist Myths of Christian Origins," in which she critiques what she calls '

the myth that the behaviour and teachings of Jesus established an unprecedented and revolutionary model for the full acceptance of the personhood of women

, reversing earlier and stricter Jewish codes which defined women as mere chattel."

 

The first time she gave it, she told me, "

Many people were deeply disturbed

. They would come up to me and they would say, '

But we really want him to be a revolutionary

. How would you define him?"

 

And I would say, 'Interesting.

Notable

. In this context,

notable

. It is a notable aspect of Jesus' movement that there are women there. There are not women everywhere. There are women in a lot of places, but they are not everywhere, and they are here, in the Jesus movement. And that is

notable

. It is a point of interest.'

And they would just look at me and confess that they didn't like that

.’’

⁸⁶²

 

Corley acknowledges the position of women within the early Christian community, but also draws attention to the fact that none of this was unique.⁸⁶³

 

Corley explains, from personal experience, the dismay many egalitarians feel when confronted by historical findings which contradict the image of Jesus they have built up for themselves:

 

"

There is resistance

," Corley went on to say, "

because it's such a politically and socially useful thing to be able to say that Jesus was on the side of women in antiquity

. It's usable, and in women's history there's always the struggle over finding not just the past but a usable past.

 

A lot of women like the revolutionary/social-radical model of Jesus

. And I could tell that they were uncomfortable with what I had to say,

because they needed Jesus to be a social radical for their own personal faith

. They were surprised that a feminist biblical scholar got up and said, '

Well, you know, maybe he wasn't

.

 

Maybe he was just a Jewish guy who had a number of women in his group,

like Simon bar Gioras did

, and this does not necessarily separate him in a radical way, in a tremendous way, from his Palestinian environment.'

 

I can understand the resistance. I too wanted to find the egalitarian Jesus

. I was a conservative woman driven to study biblical texts,

and an egalitarian Jesus would be a tremendously helpful thing

, given that I was working in a context in which people followed Paul's model that women are not to speak in church.’

⁸⁶⁴

 

She contrasts a typically optimistic egalitarian reading of the gospels, with a more realistic approach.⁸⁶⁵ Corley’s conclusion is that Jesus’ actions and teachings concerning women have been misrepresented in order to promote a social agenda.⁸⁶⁶

 

-------

⁸⁶² Murphy, ‘The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own’, p. 143 (1999).

 

⁸⁶³ 'Corley does not dispute the contention that women were intimately associated with the Jesus movement, or that they participated in inclusive meals. These characteristics are attested to in all of the gospel traditions, and as "facts" are as historically reliable as anything in the Gospels can be. But are these characteristics unique to the Jesus movement? Corley points out that women had been involved in other ancient religious and philosophical movements, such as the Therapeutae, the Cynics, the Pythagoreans, the Stoics, and the Epicureans.', ibid., p. 145 .

 

⁸⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 143-144 .

 

⁸⁶⁵ 'The story of Martha and Mary, for instance, is often cited approvingly for its implied suggestion that it is not improper to give a woman rabbinic instruction in matters of the law. In this story Mary is described as seated at the feet of Jesus. "Although such a pose does indicate that Mary is receiving instruction," Corley has noted, "her posture also reflects a more conservative, matronly scene, and she remains silent throughout the whole scene. The more radical stance would have been to invite Mary to recline with him like an equal on a banquet couch," as a man would have been invited to do.', ibid., p. 146.

 

⁸⁶⁶ 'While this study affirms the role of women in Jesus' own community and in subsequent Jesus movements, it challenges both the assumption that Jesus himself fought ancient patriarchal limitations on women and the hypothesis that the presence of women among his disciples was unique within Hellenistic Judaism. Rather, an analysis of Jesus' teaching suggests that while Jesus censured the class and status distinctions of his culture, that critique did not extend to unequal gender distinctions. The notion that Jesus established an anti-patriarchal movement or a "discipleship of equals" is a myth posited to buttress modern Christian social engineering.', Corley, ‘Women and the Historical Jesus: Feminist Myths of Christian Origins’ (2002).

[Resource Manager]

Charles Cosgrove

 

Cosgrove acknowledges that despite the extremely favourable treatment of women by Jesus and Paul, neither issued any commandment for a revision of the roles of men and women.^{867 868}

 

On the contrary, Cosgrove continues, in those passages which actually contain specific instructions concerning the theological roles of men and women, the established roles are reinforced rather than overturned.⁸⁶⁹

 

In ‘Reply 2’, Ian and Averil wrongly accuse Cosgrove of saying that the New Testament writers did not practice what they preached:

 

‘Basically, Professor Cosgrove considers that the New Testament writers don’t practice what they preach.’

⁸⁷⁰

 

On the contrary, Cosgove makes it clear that he believes the New Testament writers did practice what they preached. He believes they preached a treatment of women which in some ways went ‘against the status quo’,⁸⁷¹ but not in other ways, and that this is what they practiced.

 

-------

⁸⁶⁷ ‘Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels treats women in ways that go against the status quo; his practice transgresses the cultural norms and boundaries that define gender relations and women's proper roles in society. Likewise, Paul counts women as his partners, as patrons, as prophets, and apostles; and he teaches his churches that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Nevertheless, there are no direct prophetic admonitions or arguments in the Gospels or Paul's letters calling for new social relations between men and women. Apart from Gospel stories that might be taken as exemplary for Christians (e.g., Jesus with Martha and Mary), instructions on discipleship and community life do not include calls for egalitarian gender practice.’, Cosgrove, 'Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate: Five Hermeneutical Rules', p. 187 (2002).

 

⁸⁶⁸ ‘Moreover, where gender relations are directly addressed, the instructions for specific behaviours reinforce the cultural status quo (1 Tim. 2:11-15 being the most notable example). Thus, the New Testament writers, to the extent that they have a vision of gender equality in Christ, do not translate that vision into direct paraenesis, exhortation, or instruction for community formation.', ibid., p. 187.

 

⁸⁶⁹ ‘Moreover, where gender relations are directly addressed, the instructions for specific behaviours reinforce the cultural status quo (1 Tim. 2:11-15 being the most notable example). Thus, the New Testament writers, to the extent that they have a vision of gender equality in Christ, do not translate that vision into direct paraenesis, exhortation, or instruction for community formation.', ibid., p. 187.

 

⁸⁷⁰ ‘Reply 2’, p. 124 (April 2009).

 

⁸⁷¹ Cosgrove, 'Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate: Five Hermeneutical Rules', p. 187 (2002).

[Resource Manager]

John Elliott

 

Elliott recognizes that women had some leadership positions, but rejects typical egalitarian claims.^{872 873 874} In the interests of intellectual honesty he finds that he cannot accept the egalitarian claim:

 

‘But, as the historical and ideological critic in all of us insists,

wishing and politically correct ideology cannot not make it so

. Ultimately, this well-intentioned theory is an unhappy example of

anachronism and idealist thinking

that must be challenged

not just because it is indemonstrable or an example of flawed interpretation

but also because it is so seductive

.'

⁸⁷⁵

 

‘By imputing to the biblical authors

a modern concept of equality that is not found in the Bible and the ancient world

and by allowing this imputed concept

to determine their interpretation of the New Testament

, they have produced an interpretation that

distorts and obscures the actual content and thrust of these texts

.’

⁸⁷⁶

 

Elliott also points out that the egalitarian case has experienced strong opposition from feminist scholars, not on the basis of prejudice but due to lack of historical evidence:

 

‘The claim that the Jesus movement was egalitarian involves flawed reasoning and an anachronistic, ethnocentric, and ideologically-driven reading of the New Testament. Feminist scholars including Mary Rose D’Angelo (1992), Amy-Jill Levine (1994), and Kathleen E. Corley (1998), are likewise rejecting the egalitarian theory, objecting, inter alia, to its lack of historical support and its isolation of Jesus from his Israelite matrix.'⁸⁷⁷

 

-------

⁸⁷² ‘With every fibre of my egalitarian being I wish it were demonstrable that the Jesus movement had been egalitarian, at least at some point in its early history.’, Elliott, ‘The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented’, Biblical Interpretation (11. 2.204), 2003.

 

⁸⁷³ ‘That women were prophets is no indication of an egalitarian revolution (against Schüssler Fiorenza 1983:235), since women prophets existed in the patriarchal world prior to the Jesus movement (Luke 2:36-38). That women assumed leadership roles in the Jesus movement likewise can be attributed to their prior social status rather than to the egalitarian revolution imagined by Schüssler Fiorenza (1983: 235).’, ibid, p. 184.

 

⁸⁷⁴ ‘The claim made that the Jesus movement was egalitarian involves flawed reasoning and an anachronistic, ethnocentric, and ideologically-driven reading of the New Testament. Feminist scholars including Mary Rose D’Angelo (1992), Amy-Jill Levine (1994), and Kathleen E. Corley (1998), are likewise rejecting the egalitarian theory, objecting, inter alia, to its lack of historical support and its isolation of Jesus from his Israelite matrix.', Elliott, ‘Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critique of an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology (32.2.90), 2002.

 

⁸⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 205-206.

 

⁸⁷⁶ Elliott, ‘Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critique of an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, p. 90 (32.2.2002).

 

⁸⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 90.

[Resource Manager]

Richard Hays

 

Hays insists readers of Paul’s words must acknowledge Paul’s theological views concerning the role of women in the ecclesia are not in harmony with the egalitarian case, and cannot be made to fit.^{878 879 880}

 

He sees in 1 Corinthians 11 a hierarchy in which man is placed by God as the head of the woman.^{881 882}

 

Since the context carries no markers indicating that only husbands and wives are spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11, Hays sees the passage as applying to all men and women in the congregation.⁸⁸³

 

Hays understands Paul to be reinforcing gender differentiation markers, even as he reinforces ‘functional’ equality.⁸⁸⁴ Hays is critical of egalitarian attempts to evade the force of this text:

 

‘

Any honest appraisal of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

will require both teacher and students to confront the patriarchal implications of verses 3 and 7-9. Such

implications cannot be explained away by some technical move, such as translating kephalē as “source,” rather than “head

,” because the patriarchal assumptions

are imbedded in the structure of Paul’s argument

.’

⁸⁸⁵

 

-------

⁸⁷⁸ 'Regardless of our judgment concerning the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we must recognize a certain built-in tension concerning the role of women in Paul's symbolic world.', Hays, 'The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics', p. 55 (1996).

 

⁸⁷⁹ 'In his missionary work he joyfully acknowledges the contributions of female colleagues, fellow "workers in the Lord." Yet in some passages, such as 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, he insists — with labored and unpersuasive theological arguments — on the maintenance of traditional markers of sexual distinction; despite the ingenious efforts of exegetes at the end of the twentieth century, it is impossible to deny the hierarchical implications of such symbolic markers.’, ibid., p. 55.

 

⁸⁸⁰ ‘Indeed, Paul seems to have found the Corinthian church's experiments in gender equality somewhat unsettling; consequently, he sought to constrain what he saw as excess.', ibid., p. 55.

 

⁸⁸¹ ‘Paul comes at the Corinthians' question about head coverings indirectly, by first positing a hierarchical chain of being in verse 3 in which the word "head (kephalē) is given a metaphorical sense. (Some interpreters have tried to explain away the hierarchical implications of v.3 by arguing that kephalē means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning of the word, and it fits nicely with v. 8, in which Paul alludes to the Genesis story that describes the creation of woman out of man; however, in view of the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of v. 3 are undeniable. Even if Paul is thinking here primarily of man as the source of women rather than authority over woman, this still serves as the warrant for a claim about his ontological preeminence over her, as vv. 7-9 show.)', Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 184 (1997).

 

⁸⁸² 'The covering or uncovering of the head is not merely a sign of individual freedom, Paul insists; rather, it signifies either respect or disrespect for one's superior in the hierarchy., ibid., p. 184.

 

⁸⁸³ 'In the absence of any indicators to the contrary, it is preferable to understand Paul's directives here as applying to everyone in the community, married or unmarried: women should have covered heads in worship; men should not.', ibid., p. 185.

 

⁸⁸⁴ 'The result is that Paul supports a functional equality of men and women in the church. Women are free to pray and prophesy and exercise leadership of all sorts through the guidance of the Spirit, so long as they maintain the external markers of gender difference, particularly with regard to head coverings.', ibid., p. 189.

 

⁸⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 192.

[Resource Manager]

David Horrell

 

Egalitarian historian David Horrell has written extensively on the leadership patterns in the early ecclesias. He is not motivated by any determination to depict the Bible unfavourably, or to argue that it is ‘anti-women’. On the contrary, he acknowledges that women did hold certain positions of responsibility within the early ecclesias.⁸⁸⁶

 

However, Horrell points out that the 1^st century ecclesial ‘Haustafeln’ (‘household code’), placed males at the head.⁸⁸⁷ Having said this, Horrell then goes on to make the point that this leadership given to men was not of the unrestrained patriarchalism of the surrounding culture, but a well balanced responsibility which ensured the care of those under the protection of the male leadership:

 

‘While these codes do indeed

add theological legitimation to the established patterns of domestic domination

, providing an ideology for the household,

the demand for subordination

on the part of the socially inferior

is balanced by the demand for justice and consideration

on the part of the powerful (see Horrell 1995: 230-33).

 

The ethos of the instruction

may indeed be appropriately labelled "love-patriarchalism," not merely patriarchalism

(Theissen 1982: 107; MacDonald 1988: 102-22).’

⁸⁸⁸

 

Horrell finds that women did not occupy leadership positions within the apostolic ecclesias. On the contrary, he believes that such leadership was identified in Scripture as heretical, a contradiction of apostolic teaching.^{889 890 891}

 

Discussing the ‘household code’, Horrell makes the point that the commandments for the ordering of the household are directed towards families rather than congregations, they still demonstrate the deliberate placing of leadership in the hands of males.⁸⁹² Horrell demonstrates that the congregation was established on this same pattern of leadership, placing males at the head:

 

‘In these letters it becomes clear that the "household" pattern of instruction

informs the pattern for the whole church and for the behavior of its subordinate members

in relation to the church's leadership.’

⁸⁹³

 

-------

⁸⁸⁶ ‘Phoebe, for example, a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae, is described as a patron of many (Rom 16: 1-2).’, Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity’, Sociology of Religion, p. 326 (58.4.97).

 

⁸⁸⁷ ‘The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln address the same social groups in the same order: wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, masters (Col 3: 18-4: 1; Eph 5: 22-6:9). Women, children, and slaves are instructed to be submissive, the husbands, fathers, and masters are urged to be loving and just in their actions towards those under their care.’, ibid., p. 334.

 

888 Ibid., p. 334.

 

889 ‘Thus the author of the Pastoral Epistles supports and strengthens the position of the resident leaders in the churches of his time; he seeks to ensure that positions of leadership are filled by those of an appropriate social standing – male heads of households. The Pastoral Epistles are also fiercely polemical letters that expend considerable energy in labelling the opponents as "despicable deviants"13 [original footnote reproduced in footnote [4] below] (e.g., 1 Tim 1: 4-7, 4: 1-3, 6: 3-10; 2 Tim 2: 14-26, 3: 1-9; Titus 1: 10-14.)’, ibid., p. 331.

 

⁸⁹⁰ ‘However, it seems clear that the "false" forms of the faith allow women to take leading roles, or at least, that women regard themselves as legitimate teachers and propagators of this faith. Why else would the author of 1 Timothy need to make the stern declaration: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" (1 Tim 2: 12), a declaration which is then undergirded with legitimation drawn from the Genesis creation narratives (2: 13-14)?’, ibid., p. 331.

 

⁸⁹¹ ‘This can hardly with confidence be described as an itinerant form of missionary activity (though it may be that), but at the very least what we seem to encounter is a form of the faith, branded by the author of the Pastorals as false and Satanic, to which women are attracted and which they spread as they move from house to house (MacDonald 1988: 187-89). For the author of the letters, who sees an intimate connection between the structure of the house- hold, leadership in the churches, and socially respectable behavior, such younger widows should "marry, bear children, and manage their households" (5: 14). Forms of the faith which operate outside of, or present a challenge to, the structure of the household are a threat.’, ibid., p. 331.

 

⁸⁹² ‘These Haustafeln relate to the domestic structure of the Greco-Roman household and display no explicit connection with church leadership or structure. Nevertheless, as MacDonald points out, "The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln represent a placing of power more firmly in the hands of the rulers of the households (husbands, fathers, masters), ensuring that leadership positions fall to members of this group" (1988: 121-22). The significance of this is something to which we shall return.’, ibid., p. 334.

 

⁸⁹³ Ibid., p. 334.

[Resource Manager]

Horrell is not alone in this view, and he cites repeatedly from the scholarly consensus to support his position.^{894 895} Horrel acknowledges that Paul may have had an egalitarian orientation in some way, but points out that even if he did, this was never reflected in ecclesial reality:

 

'This is not to deny that Paul

may

have had a vision of the community as in some way 'egalitarian',

but it certainly cannot simply be assumed that this ever or anywhere

approximated to the reality encountered

'.

⁸⁹⁶

 

-------

⁸⁹⁴ ‘In 1 Clement it is the men of the community who are addressed and given the responsibility for ensuring that the others, women and children, behave appropriately (Jeffers 1991: 123; Bowe 1988: 102; Lindemann 1992: 29; Horrell 1996 §6.4). As Campbell has argued, here (and in 1 Peter) the "elders" seem to comprise a group of men who are senior in faith and prominent in social position (1 Peter 5: 5; Campbell 1994: 210-16; cf., Maier 1991: 93, 100). The prominent (male) heads of households have their responsibility qua leaders of the community. This is most clear in the Pastoral Epistles, especially 1 Timothy, where the main duties mentioned for the bishop and the deacon are their responsibilities for respectable citizenship and good household management (1 Tim 3: 1-13; Titus 1: 5-9). This is where the instruction to the socially prominent men of the community is found. The corollary of these requirements is the instructions in the Pastorals that women and slaves must be submissive and appropriately obedient. Women are forbidden to teach or be in authority over men; they must learn in silent submission (1 Tim 2: 11-15). The church community is shaped according to the household model; indeed, it is described as the "household of God" (1 Tim 3: 15), and so the ecclesiastical hierarchy mirrors the domestic and social hierarchy. "The role of leaders as relatively well-to-do householders who act as masters of their wives, children, and slaves is inseparably linked with their authority in the church" (MacDonald 1988: 214).’, ibid., p. 335.

 

⁸⁹⁵ Ibid., p. 335.

 

⁸⁹⁶ ‘As the resources of scriptural, dominical, and apostolic tradition are used to legitimate the pattern of resident leadership (as we have seen in 1 Timothy, 1 Clement, and Ignatius) so at the same time the resources of the household code are used to insist that the subordinate members of the household, women and slaves, must for the Lord's sake be obedient and submissive. The power struggle to establish such a pattern of leadership is one in which the Haustafeln play a part, conferring power upon the male heads of household and providing theological legitimation for the subordination of those who are to be excluded from positions of power and leadership.’, Horrell, ‘The social ethos of the Corinthians correspondence: interests and ideology’, p. 125 (1996).

[Resource Manager]

L. Ann Jervis

 

Jervis is frank about the fact that re-interpretations of Paul’s commandments are motivated by the offense they give to modern egalitarians, identifying1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a case in point:

 

'For two reasons the words of 1 Cor. 14.34-35

impress many modem readers as offensive

: they deny freedom of speech and they appear to do so on the basis of gender.

Several recent interpreters have sought to lessen this passage’s offense by interpreting it as an interpolation by a post-Pauline editor

.'

⁸⁹⁷

 

In an extended argument, Jervis makes a detailed case against the claim that this passage is an interpolation.^{898 899}

 

'

In fact, however, Paul regularly uses the aforementioned warrants in support of his directives, especially in 1 Corinthians

. 21 [original footnote reproduced in footnote

⁹⁰⁰

below]’

⁹⁰¹

 

Jervis makes the point in particular that appeals to ‘the Law’ and what is shameful, are typical of Paul:

 

'

In 1 Cor. 7.19 Paul appeals to ‘the commandments of God’ in a similarly abstract way and for the purpose of persuasion

.

 

Furthermore, it is far from self-evident that the reference to law in v. 34 is at odds with Paul’s other appeals to law, that is, that the appeal to law in this passage indicates that the author had a view of the role of law in Christian ethics different from Paul’s. P.J. Tomson has demonstrated that an appeal to law for the purpose of directing behaviour

is typical of Paul, who claimed the authority of law without at the same time being obligated to it

.23'

⁹⁰²

'The appeal to shame in 1 Cor. 14.35 is not unusual.

Paul appeals to shame for specific reasons in 1 Cor. 11.6

.'

⁹⁰³

 

Jervis is equally dismissive of the claim that this passage is a quotation from Paul’s opponents, and cites Fee in support:

 

'31. The proposition that these verses (and perhaps also v. 36) are Paul’s quotation of his opponents’ opinion (e.g. N.M. Flanagan and E.H. Snyder, ‘Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor. 14.34-36?’, BTB 11 [1981], pp. 10-12; and P.F. Ellis, Seven Pauline Letters [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982], pp. 102-103)

founders when it is noticed that, in passages where Paul quotes his opponents’slogan, both the slogan and the retort relate to issues in the surrounding verses

(e.g. 1 Cor. 6.12-13; 7.1). The verses surrounding our passage, on the other hand,

are not about gender-specific actions in worship

.

Another difficulty with this proposition is

the lack of supporting evidence that the Corinthians held the view of the supposed slogan

. In fact, the opposite evidence presents itself – ;at the Corinthian worship men and women prophesy together (1 Cor. 11.2-16) (cf. Fee, Corinthians, p. 705).

Fee points out further that ‘

there is no precedent for such a long quotation that is also full of argumentation

’ (Corinthians, p. 705).'

⁹⁰⁴

 

-------

⁸⁹⁷ Jervis, ‘1 Corinthians 14.34-35: a Reconsideration of Paul's Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament (17.51), 1995.

 

⁸⁹⁸ 'Such a gloss is not best explained, however, as the product of an editor with a viewpoint different from Paul’s for (1) there is no precedent in the Pauline letters that I know of for a gloss intended to contradict directly Paul’s own view; (2) there is precedent for Paul adding words late in the process of composing a letter and for this resulting in a variety of textual traditions; and (3) the passage appears in every extant manuscript, which should caution us against too readily adopting an interpolation hypothesis. The best interpretation of the textual evidence is that of Antoinette Clark Wire who concludes that the words were originally a gloss either by Paul, an amanuensis or the first person to copy the letter.99'bid., p. 51.

 

⁸⁹⁹ 'Moreover, there are problems with the interpolation theory’s typical presentation of the passage’s warrants. The theory argues that the passage uses the warrants of ‘law’, ‘shame’, and ‘what is permitted’//‘custom’ in an ‘unPauline’ way and that the reference to ‘all the churches’ indicates a general rule which fits uncomfortably in Paul’s very particular letter.’, ibid., p. 56.

 

⁹⁰⁰ ‘21. J.C. Hurd points out that Paul typically appeals, especially in 1 Cor. 7-16, to five warrants for his directives: Jesus, Scripture, common sense, custom and his own authority. The Origin of 1 Corinthians [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983], p. 74). Cf. P.J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), pp.81-86. The appeals of 1 Cor. 14.34-35 can be seen to correspond to two of these typically Pauline appeals, i.e. law = Scripture; shame = custom; what is permitted = custom; and, all the churches = custom.’.

 

⁹⁰¹ Ibid., p. 57.

 

⁹⁰² Ibid., p. 58.

 

⁹⁰³ Ibid., p. 58.

 

⁹⁰⁴ Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[Resource Manager]

Walter Liefeld

 

Walter Liefeld has been highly critical of the historical reconstructions and word meanings proposed by egalitarians Catherine and Richard Kroeger.⁹⁰⁵

 

‘I Suffer Not a Woman is filled with efforts to find “sex reversal,” “female dominance,” and “sex and death” motifs in Ephesian society, because the Kroegers believe that, in the end, all these things are implied in Paul’s prohibition that women should not aὐθεντεῖν.

 

It is no wonder that L. E. Wilshire, even though he shares the egalitarian outlook

, says: “This is a breathtaking extension into (pre-) Gnostic content

yet an interpretation I do not find supported either by the totality of their own extensive philological study, by the NT context, or by the immediate usages of the word authenteo and its variants

.”16 [original footnote reproduced in footnote

⁹⁰⁶

below]’

⁹⁰⁷

 

Liefeld dismisses the proposed definition ‘source’ for the Greek word kephalē, and offers significant support for complementarian Wayne Grudem’s analysis.^{908 909 910}

 

-------

⁹⁰⁵ ‘The second part of the thesis is that the other verb, authenteo, "represents either a ritual act or a doctrinal tenet propounded by the heretical teachers." This does not seem to fit any of the meanings proposed for authenteo in her first paragraph: "begin." "be... responsible for," "rule," "dominate," "usurp power or rights." "claim ownership, sovereignty or authorship." Further, it is a bit of a twist to claim that authenteo, which is a verb, could "represent a doctrinal tenet," when "tenet" is a noun.', Liefeld, 'Response: 1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's View', in Mickelsen, 'Women, Authority & The Bible', p. 245 (1986); Liefeld is particularly valuable because he is himself an egalitarian, who would naturally be more sympathetic to the Kroeger argument, so his criticism carry considerable weight.

 

⁹⁰⁶ ‘16. “Revisited,” 54. Wilshire observes that his earlier study on aὐθεντεῖν (NTS 34 [1988] 120-34) is missing in the Kroegers’ book, although it is normally cited in discussions of this verb. “The omission,” he says, “would seem to be deliberate” (p. 53).’, Baugh, ‘The Apostle among the Amazons’, Westminster Theological Journal (56.157), Spring 1994; Wilshire is an egalitarian.

 

⁹⁰⁷ Ibid., p. 157.

 

⁹⁰⁸ ‘The meaning “source,” adduced by Bedale as a clue to some of Paul’s passages, lacks clear evidence.’, Liefeld, ‘Women, Submission, and Ministry in 1 Corinthians’, in Mickelsen, ‘Women, authority & the Bible’, p. 139 (1986).

 

⁹⁰⁹ 'Perhaps Paul beings 1 Corinthians 11 by using kephalē in a less technical sense than either authority or source, introducing those overtones only later as he writes about women's authority in verse 10 and about woman coming from man and vice versa in verses 11-12. In my judgment, it is not only methodologically correct but also proves exegetically fruitful to keep to the mainstream of Greek and Septuagintal thought and see kephalē as that part of the body that was (1) prominent, because, given the ancient mode of dressing from neck to foot, most easily observed, (2) representative of the whole body and, less frequently, (3) the eminent or most honored part of the body.', ibid., p. 139.

 

⁹¹⁰ ’In my judgment, however, it is no longer possible, given Grudem’s research, to dismiss the idea of “rulership” from the discussion.’, ibid., p. 139.

[Resource Manager]

Liefeld likewise rejects the suggestion that only false teaching is prohibited.⁹¹¹

 

Liefeld opposes strongly the speculative reconstructions of Catherine Kroeger in her earlier work, demonstrating that her supposed Gnostic background for the first letter to Timothy is unsupported by historical evidence.^{912 913}

 

-------

⁹¹¹ 'However, in the only passage in the Pastoral Epistles that combines a clear reference both to heretical teachings and to women, women are not the promulgators but the victims of false teaching (2 Tim 3:6-7). The question still remains, therefore, why Paul does not leave matters with the general prohibition against false teaching in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, but adds a paragraph directed specifically against women teachers. He thus restricts the recipients, rather than the originators, of the false doctrine. Of course, since the women—whether because of poor education, pagan influence or whatever— were being easily deceived in that culture, that fact connects with the reference in 2:14 to the deceiving of Eve. But that relates to the problem of women being deceived rather than to the problem of heresy itself.', Liefeld, ‘Response to David M. Scholer’, in Mickelsen, ‘Women, authority & the Bible’, p. 220 (1986).

 

⁹¹² ‘It is precarious, as Edwin Yamauchi and others have shown, to assume gnostic backgrounds for New Testament books. Although the phrase, "falsely called knowledge," in 1 Timothy 6:20 contains the Greek word gnosis, this was the common word for knowledge. It does seem anachronistic to transliterate and capitalize it "Gnosis" as Kroeger does.’, Liefeld, 'Response: 1 Timothy 2:12 - A Classicist's View', in Mickelsen, 'Women, Authority & The Bible', p. 246 (1986).

 

⁹¹³ ‘Kroeger presents a wide range of material relating to the pervasive presence of the serpent in ancient religion. Here again, caution is needed. The serpent motif was so common that we must not read too much into its appearance. Its presence in the Timothy passage is only an inference. Kroeger develops a network of phenomena without carefully explaining how closely these items truly are to each other and to the text in 1 Timothy.', ibid., p. 247.

[Resource Manager]

Likewise, Liefeld objects to Kroeger’s interpretation of the phrase ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man’:

 

‘The first part of the thesis is that the verb didasko "prohibits the erroneous teaching." This is related to the earlier observation that in the Pastorals "both didasko and didaskalos... generally refer to the

content

[emphasis mine] of the message." Naturally a teacher teaches content, but it is true that in the Pastorals there is a great emphasis on what is taught. Further, mention of the act of teaching in these epistles is, as Kroeger realizes,

usually accompanied by a specific reference to the content of the teaching

.

 

But in contrast,

neither of the Greek words used for the content of teaching

(didaskalia, didache)

is used in the verse under consideration

.

 

The two nouns occur a total of seventeen times in the Pastorals

and could easily have been used here

. Kroeger's task is to explain how one can maintain that the verb didasko "prohibits the erroneous teaching"

when Paul, who could have said clearly, "I do not permit women to teach

error

," omitted any such reference to the content

.

Then, too, the verb itself

is usually used in connection with good, rather than with erroneous

, teaching in the Pastorals. To propose that the verb refers in a special way to the content, and specifically to erroneous content,

goes beyond the natural meaning of the text

.

 

Also, while the verb

teach

is used absolutely, without an object expressing content,

it does have a subject,

woman

,

which is not mentioned in Kroeger's initial thesis statement at all. In summary,

the Greek reader of this text would naturally understand the emphasis of the first words to be "I do not permit a

woman

to teach

," whereas Kroeger proposes to demonstrate that its emphasis is " I do not permit a woman to teach

error

."’

⁹¹⁴

 

-------

⁹¹⁴ Ibid., p. 247.

[Resource Manager]

William Lillie

 

Lillie is an egalitarian who acknowledges that the 1^st century ecclesia was non-egalitarian. He observes that ecclesial ‘house tables’ present a balanced and nurturing hierarchy which seeks to preclude abuse:

 

'Most prominent among the particular exhortations is that to

obedience in the case of children and

slaves, and to submission in the case of wives

. In Ephesians the whole house-table is prefaced by a general command, ‘Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ’.'

⁹¹⁵

'

Those in authority, husbands,

parents and masters

are called to be subject to one another - an unusual requirement in the ancient, and even in the modern, world.'

⁹¹⁶

 

In Paul’s writings, Lillie sees only ‘steps in the right direction’, rather than an egalitarianism.^{917 918} For this reason, Lillie suggests that the Biblical example is not necessarily to be followed by modern Christians.^{919 920}

 

-------

⁹¹⁵ Lillie, ‘The Pauline House-tables’, The Expository Times (86.179.181), 1975.

 

⁹¹⁶ Ibid., p. 182.

 

⁹¹⁷ 'The house-tables clearly envisage a hierarchical ordering of the household, but even in them we have aspirations to a more egalitarian order. The subordinate parties have reciprocal rights, - the wife to her husband’s love and kindly treatment, the children to encouragement and freedom from senseless teasing, and slaves to just and fair treatment. Not very much we may think, but at least steps in the right direction.', ibid., p. 182.

 

⁹¹⁸ 'The house-tables are not concerned with the changing of the social order, although, as has already been suggested, there may be in them the seeds of such change.', ibid., p. 182.

 

⁹¹⁹ 'The subordinate place given to wives in the house-tables and the whole institution of slavery taken for granted there are no longer acceptable in the more egalitarian society of today.', ibid., p. 182.

 

⁹²⁰ 'It would be wrong to think, however, that, because the hierarchical ordering of the household is accepted without question by Paul, it is necessarily the pattern for all time for the life of the Christian home.', ibid., p. 182.

[Resource Manager]

I. Howard Marshall

 

Egalitarian I Howard Marshall describes his gradual change of views:

 

‘So I was now a member of a church with ordained women ministers. Subsequently I served for a period as a member of the church’s selection committee for candidates for the ministry and had to assess the qualities of applicants regardless of whether they were male or female.

 

Throughout this process I faced the dilemma of

whether I could reconcile the practice of the church

and my own involvement in it with my acceptance of

the authority of Scripture

, and I confess that

I did not find it easy to do so at that time

.’

⁹²¹

 

Marshall is particularly honest in acknowledging that he sought to reconcile his church’s practice with Scripture, rather than look to Scripture to determine how his church should practice:

 

‘

You will observe, for I’m trying to be honest

, that I was looking for

a reconciliation of church practice with Scripture

rather than necessarily for a direct encouragement and legitimation of church practice

by Scripture

.’

⁹²²

 

However, Marshall remains dedicated to the authority of the Bible:

 

‘Nevertheless, for our part,

we must insist that we do hold to the authority of Scriptur

e, and that the issue is one of

the correct exegesis and interpretation of Scripture

.’

⁹²³

 

Marshall typically does not dispute what the Biblical text actually says, even if he disputes its present day application. He also acknowledges certain complementarian arguments.⁹²⁴

 

-------

⁹²¹ Marshall, ‘Women in Ministry’, in Husbands & Larsen, ‘Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 54 (2007).

 

⁹²² Ibid., p. 54.

 

⁹²³ Ibid., p. 54.

 

⁹²⁴ ‘But then, third, Paul goes further and states that he does not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man. It is generally assumed by traditionalists that, since elsewhere older women are encouraged to be good teachers (Tit 2:3) and the young Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15),17 the prohibition is of women teaching adult men, perhaps thinking especially of their husbands, and/or that the prohibition is of public teaching in a congregational meeting rather than in the privacy of a home,18 and/or that the reference is thus to what might be regarded as the “official, authoritative” setting forth of Christian doctrine rather than something less formal. In such ways the prohibition here might be harmonized with indications of their teaching functions elsewhere.’, ibid., p. 59.

[Resource Manager]

Marshall likewise resists attempts to read the 1^st century ecclesia outside its historical context. In doing so, Marshall concedes key points usually contested by egalitarians:

 

‘The passages must also be seen in their

historical context

. There is a background in the social/moral teaching of contemporary ethicists who summed up life in the typical Graeco-Roman household in terms of three relationships: husband/wife; parent/child; master/ slave, where one and the same person can be husband, father and master.

 

In such relationships

this patriarchal figure had authority,

and the three other types of person

were required to be submissive

and obedient

. The Christian teaching

assumes this situation

and gives similar instructions

, requiring the authoritarian figure

not

to abuse his position and those

under him to be submissive

. In particular the husband is to

treat

his wife lovingly

.’

⁹²⁵

 

Marshall however argues that today the cultural background is different, and application of the Biblical commandments must be altered in accommodation of the contemporary social environment.⁹²⁶

 

-------

⁹²⁵ Marshall, ‘Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage’, Double Image: The Bulletin of Men Women and God (12.1.3), 2007.

 

⁹²⁶ ‘There is a concealed danger of thinking that all of this instruction can be taken over basically unchanged into the world of today, whereas in fact there are significant differences. The nature of parental authority over children has somewhat changed and is not so absolute as it was. We no longer have slavery, but a much more complicated system of employment with important rights for workers. Slavery is no longer considered a legitimate system that is compatible with Christian ethics. Although not mentioned here, the concept of the absolutist ruler and the totally submissive subjects (1 Peter 2:13-17) has been rejected in favour of some kind of democracy. Thus in each of these relationships the structures have changed, and we have to ask how the first-century teaching is to be reapplied to them.’ , ibid., p. 3.

[Resource Manager]

ED L. Miller

 

Miller believes egalitarianism can at best only be extrapolated from Paul’s teachings,⁹²⁷ and that Christians must acknowledge Paul did not have an egalitarian aim:

 

‘That is not to say that we today, as others before us, cannot work that out and draw the implication on Paul’s behalf.

But it seems not to have been done in the Pauline texts themselves

, and certainly not the one before us. [Galatians 3:28]

We have to try to be honest about that

.'

⁹²⁸

 

Rejecting the egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3:28, he accepts the complementarian view:

 

‘It must be admitted, though, for better or for worse,

that this view of Galatians 3:28 coheres both with its immediate context and with the rest of what we know of Paul

. This includes his notion of the priority of the true Israel over Gentile Christians who are merely grafted on to it, his implicit condoning of slavery,

and his hierarchical view of husband-wife relations

.’

⁹²⁹

 

-------

⁹²⁷ 'My own view is that Paul was inclined, as it were, in the direction of social egalitarianism in the case of Gentiles, slaves, and women, and we are all aware of the oft-cited texts containing the germs of such a teaching.’, Miller, ‘Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?’, The Expository Times (114.9.11), 2002.

 

⁹²⁸ Ibid., p.11.

 

⁹²⁹ Ibid., p.11.

[Resource Manager]

Cullen Murphy

 

Murphy speaks of Galatians 3:28 as an egalitarian formula,⁹³⁰ but her interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 agrees with complementarians:

 

'

Paul may have expressed sentiments in Galatians that an egalitarian would hail

— and perhaps those sentiments are the most important ones for women in the Pauline corpus — but in 1 Corinthians

he showed himself to be clearly disturbed by the powerful and inde­pendent women in the Christian community at Corinth

.

 

He did not forbid the Corinthian women to prophesy,

but he demanded that they cover their heads when they prayed in public,

and in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 he added a statement — "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" —

that uses Genesis, a sacred text, to define women as subordi­nate to men

.

 

Later, in 1 Corinthians 14, he employed a reprise of the same argument

to single out women and insist that they should keep silent in church

.'

⁹³¹

 

-------

⁹³⁰ 'In the epistle to the Galatians, he not only embraces an egalitarian formula but grounds it in the very essence of Christianity.', Murphy, ‘The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own’, p. 219 (1999).

 

⁹³¹ Iibid., p. 225; the motives she ascribes to Paul are disputable.

[Resource Manager]

Clark Pinnock

 

Pinnock acknowledges the challenge egalitarians face:

 

‘

An enormous obstacle confronts biblical feminists in the area of hermeneutics

. Some scholars,

both on the feminist side and on the nonfeminist sides

, agree that the Bible as presently constituted

does not teach a feminist position

.’

⁹³²

 

‘The situation is not made easier by the apparent fact that

biblical feminists have not yet produced many works that can stand on a level with these four [complementarian[ books and show where they are mistaken

. Biblical feminists say it can be done, but has it been done?

When may we expect it to be done?

'

⁹³³

 

Pinnock also notes that the egalitarians who find it easiest to deal with the Biblical teaching on men and women are those who find reasons to simply remove the texts, either by treating them as interpolations or by arguing that they do not reflect the overall teaching of Scripture:

 

'Evangelicals such as Jewett and Mollenkott, on a more modest scale, perform the same kind of content criticism.

Perhaps it

is

necessary to reject parts of the Bible in order to come up with the feminist belief

. If it were not, why would these two engage in it?'

⁹³⁴

 

Pinnock sees the main problem a a credibility issue. Those egalitarian scholars attempting to argue that the Bible actually contains explicit egalitarian teaching (or at least that it does not contain complementarian teaching), necessarily read the text in ways which most people (including scholars), find unnatural, contrived, and unconvincing:

 

'Of course, the biblical feminist interpretation is possible;

the problem is that it does not strike many people, either scholarly or untutored, as plausible

.'

⁹³⁵

 

Recognizing the strength of the complementarian case, Pinnock asks his fellow egalitarians to be genuinely openminded and accept the possibility that they are wrong:

 

'What if it does appear that the more plausible interpretation of the Bible as a whole

sustains the category of male headship

?'

⁹³⁶

 

'On the other side, the biblical feminists

must stop depicting the traditional view in such dark colors.

If it should turn out true

that God did intend males to exhibit strength in leadership roles and females to excel more as the guardians of society's emotional resources,

why should this be viewed ipso facto as an evil arrangement?

 

I worry that the biblical feminists

are painting themselves into a corner

. It would be wiser for all concerned to be respectful of both the traditional and the biblical feminist models.'

⁹³⁷

 

After his survey of selected literature, Pinnock concludes that the egalitarian case is difficult to sustain from Scripture alone, and equally difficult to present convincingly.^{938 939}

 

-------

⁹³² Pinnock, 'Biblical Authority & The Issues In Question', in Mickelson (ed.), ‘Women, Authority, And the Bible’, p. 52 (1986); by ‘biblical feminists’ Pinnock means egalitarians.

 

⁹³³ Iibid., p. 52.

 

⁹³⁴ Iibid., pp. 54-55.

 

⁹³⁵ Ibid., p. 55.

 

⁹³⁶ Ibid., p. 57.

 

⁹³⁷ Ibid., p. 58

 

⁹³⁸ 'Based on my reading for this report, I have come to believe that a case for feminism that appeals to the canon of Scripture as it stands can only hesitantly be made and that a communication of it to evangelicals at large is unlikely to be very effective.’, ibid., p. 57.

 

⁹³⁹ 'My own experience in preparing for this panel has been a slight loss of confidence that Biblical feminism can make its case or be able to sell it effectively among evangelicals.’, ibid., p. 58.

[Resource Manager]

Judith Gundry-Volf

 

Gundry-Volf agrees with complementarians that although gender equality in the sense of equal value is promoted by Paul, gender distinctions (in the form of specific gender roles, behavior, and hierarchy within the ecclesia), are upheld and reinforced.[1] [2] [3]

 

‘Judith Gundry-Volf concludes: “Paul’s main point is that man and woman are both the

glory of another

and therefore both have an obligation not to cause shame to their ‘heads’ … since they are the glory of

different

persons — man is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man —

they must use different means to avoid shaming their ‘heads

.’

 

But Paul appeals to creation to show their obligation to bring glory — each to the particular one whose glory they are by creation

— which they do through distinctive masculine and feminine hairstyles

[or head coverings]” (her italics).’[4]

 

Gundry-Volf also sees no contradiction in Paul insisting on hierarchical gendered relationships, whilst at the same time reinforcing social equality between men and women:

 

‘In whatever way we choose to translate κεφaλή, however,

Judith Gundry-Volf formulates the fundamental principle

that since Paul is setting up a complex and conscious dialectic between a gender-distinctive creation order and a gospel order of reciprocity and mutuality,

neither of these two aspects of the arguments

should be selected atomistically and accorded privilege

as representing the whole

.

 

Paul can appeal “

to creation to support instructions which presume a hierarchical relationship of man and woman as well as undergird their new social equality in Christ without denying their difference

.”41’[5]

 

-------

⁹⁴⁰ 'Further, in Gal 3:28 he affirms gender equality ("there is no longer male and female, for you are all one in Christ") and in 1 Cor 11:2-16 he expects women to pray and prophesy just as men do in public worship. Yet there also he insists on distinct headdress for men and women in worship, which symbolized traditional gender boundaries and had hierarchical implications.', Gundry-Volf, ‘Putting the Moral Vision of the New Testament into Focus: A Review’, Bulletin for Biblical Research (9.278), 1999.

 

⁹⁴¹ 'When we come to Paul's explicit discussion of gender issues in 1 Corinthians, we find that he takes the same basic view as in Gal 3:28 (as I have just described it). Sexual distinctions are not erased (as implied in Paul's statements about marriage, sex, and gender-specific headdress).', ibid., p. 281

 

⁹⁴² 'It would be wrong to claim that Paul rejects all conventional, patriarchal interpretations of sexual difference and their corresponding expressions in cultural and religious practice.', ibid., pp. 281-282.

 

⁹⁴³ Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 837 (2000).

 

⁹⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 811.

[Resource Manager]

Kenton Sparks

 

Kenton Sparks has written an extensive work on the interpretation of Scripture, with particular regard to methods of re-interpreting Scripture in order to take into account new historical, archaeological, and scientific knowledge, as well as new legal, social, ethical, and cultural developments. His comments on gender equity and gender roles in Scripture are detailed and extensive.

 

Repeatedly he acknowledges the strength of the complementarian case:

 

'

Thoughtful egalitarians will admit

what every complementarian is quick to point out:

that the Bible contains numerous texts that are patriarchal in orientation

.'

⁹⁴⁵

 

'The context of these biblical texts reveals that

, in the game of proof-text poker, the traditionalists have a far stronger hand than the egalitarians

. Whereas the traditionalist verses

speak very directly and specifically to the issue at hand

("wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord"), the egalitarian texts

seem strained to the breaking point

.'

⁹⁴⁶

 

'The biblical evidence in support of the traditional viewpoint spans

the canon from the creation to the General Epistles

, and the resulting perspective

is remarkably consistent

.'

⁹⁴⁷

 

‘That the woman was made from man to be his helper, and that he twice names her (Gen. 2:23; 3:20), as he does the animals (2:20),

suggests his priority and authority over her - just as 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 11:5-10 indicate

. As for Genesis 3:16,

despite egalitarian objections

, it remains very likely that the subordination of Eve to Adam

is a

prescription

from God

rather than a mere

description

of the fall's natural consequences.'

⁹⁴⁸

 

-------

⁹⁴⁵ Sparks, ‘God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship’, p. 339 (2008).

 

⁹⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 343.

 

⁹⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 344.

 

⁹⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 348.